Lately I see a lot of calls do have specific instances defederated for a particular subset of reasons:

  • Don’t like their content
  • Dont like their political leaning
  • Dont like their free speech approach
  • General feeling of being offended
  • I want a safe space!
  • This instance if hurting vulnerable people

I personally find each and every one of these arguments invalid. Everybody has the right to live in an echo chamber, but mandating it for everyone else is something that goes a bit too far.

Has humanity really developed into a situation where words and thoughts are more hurtful than sticks and stones?

Edit: Original context https://slrpnk.net/post/554148

Controversial topic, feel free to discuss!

  • Hastur@sh.itjust.worksOPM
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    There’s a big difference between “views are challenged” and either active misinformation (vaccines = gene therapy?!?

    I would first start with the definition of gene-therapy and take it from there to start with, but if we keep in on a layman level:

    1. mRNA vaccines do contain a genetic program to code a specific protein
    2. Once the mRNA instructions are processed in your cells they will start to produce the protein encoded in these instructions
    3. the resulting protein is released and your immune system reacts which ideally leads to immunization against this protein.

    The above is current scientific status quo and not controversial at all. So could you call is agend therapy? Yes using the term just bit more broadly this would still fit.

    Is it misinformation? Maybe. But don’t we have a right to decide for ourselves what is and isn’t misinformation? Shouldn’t misinformation be challenged and ridiculed when exposed? I’d like to be able to do that but I can’t if it’s behind walls or hidden in dark corners, where it festers and attracts the wrong people.

    or rampant bigotry. As a half-jewish person, I’m especially (again, subjectively) keen to avoid interacting with people like that.

    Again: Dont they have a right to be bigoted?

    I understand if you don’t want to be associated with them, this is legit. But shouldn’t other be allowed to debate them, confront them or even partially agree with them?

    If you’re hiding or prohibiting open debate you will only get more of it, we can see this over and over, again and again. Prohibited fruits are the interesting ones.

    Make it uncool to be a bigoted Nazi and only a marginalized group will associate with them. Demonize and censor them and see them grow exponentially in number, influence and power.

    • Barbarian@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      If that counts as gene therapy, then the term becomes meaningless as the majority of medicine is now counted as gene therapy. They use it in this way to make it sound scary and dangerous. All medicine has side-affects and risks, but the vague use of scary language is the point.

      Sure, I’m not the thought police and I’m never going to claim to be always right, all the time. That way leads to a complete and utter inability to engage with new information that challenges worldviews. Where that ends for me is judging people based on parentage and ethnicity. I have no interest talking to a person like that.

      Debating a racist isn’t normally a productive experience. You can’t logic your way out of a position that you started believing for emotional reasons. Also, they normally don’t treat words and arguments with the same care as their interlocutors. Consequently, if somebody wants to go engage with them and try and convince them they’re wrong, I wish them all the luck in the world, I just think it’s a waste of time most of the time. For me, I just want to share links and have conversations with people who don’t think of me as sub-human or inherently evil.

      • Hastur@sh.itjust.worksOPM
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        For me, I just want to share links and have conversations with people who don’t think of me as sub-human or inherently evil.

        Wholeheartedly agreed! And that is the point from where we can look at things we have in common despite, maybe, some opposing views:

        We both want to read, share and comment on interesting stuff we expect to find here on Lemmy in the Fediverse.

        It also seems that we’re both interested in civilised exchange of views and arguments.

        The only key difference I see, and correct me if I’m wrong here, is that you wouldn’t want to see/engage stuff you define as bigoted/racist or hateful, correct?

        Which I can understand and even agree upon. The only thing that makes me doubt is: Is defederation and the call for authorities (admins) the right way to deal with this? Or should the recipient decide what the filters should be? Like in the email approach, the recipient decides if he wants to receive an email and even then it might get filtered out and land in spam.

        A blacklist, to keep using the email protocol as example, is a tool used sparingly and only when other filtering methods are unsuccessful or when greater damage is prevented that way.

        What do you think?

        • phase_change@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          A blacklist, to keep using the email protocol as example, is a tool used sparingly and only when other filtering methods are unsuccessful or when greater damage is prevented that way.

          Have you ever run a mail server? If so, have you looked at your logs? The RBL’s on the managed mail gateway for my work turns away 70% of the attempts. This is even before spam scoring kicks in on the 30% initially accepted. A significant percent of that is considered spam. Email has a complex set of automated tools to reject content without even viewing it.

          I still think email, even though federated, is a poor analogy to make for Lemmy.

          • Hastur@sh.itjust.worksOPM
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            Actually I do have my own mailserver and for obvious reasons I do not longer use most of the big IP based blacklists because they just don’t work well enough, some are basically blackmail+systems with pay-for-removal.

            It’s something else when you rely on third party (in my analogy the call for a filtering authority) than you being the one who makes the call and what is being filtered and why.

            As with spam filtering: If you rely on someone else to filter out stuff for you, you hand over control about what you get and what you see. The potential for abuse of this power is a greater danger in my opinion that having to do some extra work to set up filters myself.

            This is, BTW, the main reason my I deGoogled and set up my very own server.

            • phase_change@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago

              Yep, my personal domains have always been on my own mail server. My IP has been on the UCE-Protect blocklist for years. I believe it’s now up to an IPv4 /17. Luckily no one reputable uses them since it’s one of the biggest fake pay-to-remove out there.

              Like you, I want that full control and don’t want to trust (or pay) a big player.

              At work, where we have thousands of mailboxes, interacting with people on all continents, I’d much rather outsource that. It’s cheaper in the long run and takes up less of my time.

              If you want to get backs to email as a analogy for the fediverse, and I already think it’s a bad analogy, someone running their own mail server has the full right to block anyone, including all AWS ip address space if they want. Why shouldn’t someone running a Lemmy server have that same right?

              • Hastur@sh.itjust.worksOPM
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Somebody running (!) or administrating an email sever can of course make this call! I expect a lemmy admin to make reasonable decisions.

                But let’s keep that analogy: You’re an email sever admin and one of your users asks you to block everything coming from Amazon/AWS and affiliates, because they dislike how this company is run. Would you block the traffic or tell the user how to use filters at his disposal?

        • taladar@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          A blacklist, to keep using the email protocol as example, is a tool used sparingly and only when other filtering methods are unsuccessful or when greater damage is prevented that way.

          What are you talking about? Email admins use blacklists (usually in the form of DNS RBLs but there are others) all the time.

        • Barbarian@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Is defederation and the call for authorities (admins) the right way to deal with this? Or should the recipient decide what the filters should be? Like in the email approach, the recipient decides if he wants to receive an email and even then it might get filtered out and land in spam.

          There’s a key difference with email: that’s opt-in communication. Generally speaking (outside of botspam which does get blacklisted) you have to sign up for a newsletter or ask someone to email you. It’s opt-in, not opt-out. Lemmy/Kbin are by definition opt-out: a new user, browsing All, will see everything they haven’t blocked.

          An admin, attempting to make the kind of user that they want to see on their instance feel welcome, does have a duty to curate it. If the first post they see on their New feed is a screed calling for the death of all LGBTQ+ people (for example), do you think a brand new user will calmly block the community and move on, or decide that this instance isn’t the one for them? And a user that agrees with that hateful message, they have now gotten the message that this instance is friendly to their worldview.

          Curation determines userbase which determines content. I know which side of the coin I fall on there.

          • Hastur@sh.itjust.worksOPM
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            There’s a key difference with email: that’s opt-in communication. Generally speaking (outside of botspam which does get blacklisted) you have to sign up for a newsletter or ask someone to email you. It’s opt-in, not opt-out. Lemmy/Kbin are by definition opt-out: a new user, browsing All, will see everything they haven’t blocked.

            Good point!

            If the first post they see on their New feed is a screed calling for the death of all LGBTQ+ people (for example), do you think a brand new user will calmly block the instance and move on, or decide that this instance isn’t the one for them? And a user that agrees with that hateful message, they have now gotten the message that this instance is friendly to their worldview.

            And here I disagree with you. The world is a horrible, dangerous, wonderful, exciting , murderous, funny, sad, depressing, manic place. Hiding that some people hate gays will not change the fact that some people hate gays. It will also not make these people disappear. Isn’t it better to know reality and accept it as it is, deal with it as it comes?

            • Barbarian@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago

              I think that this has been a surprisingly productive debate. I may not agree with you on this, but I do understand where you’re coming from and can respect it. I think I’ll answer this and leave it at that:

              Isn’t it better to know reality and accept it as it is, deal with it as it comes?

              I don’t need to read hateful things to know that hateful people exist. I’ve had plenty of people say far worse to my face IRL. I don’t come to Lemmy and didn’t go to Reddit to get into shouting matches with people who think me or my friends are less-than. My goal here is not changing the world, it’s entertainment and discussion. Neither am I seeking some safe space with a strict blocklist and careful vetting of each user. All I want is a medium place where I can have good conversations without someone questioning my right to exist.

              • Hastur@sh.itjust.worksOPM
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                I think that this has been a surprisingly productive debate.

                Thank you and likewise.

                I don’t need to read hateful things to know that hateful people exist. I’ve had plenty of people say far worse to my face IRL. I don’t come to Lemmy and didn’t go to Reddit to get into shouting matches with people who think me or my friends are less-than. My goal here is not changing the world, it’s entertainment and discussion. Neither am I seeking some safe space with a strict blocklist and careful vetting of each user. All I want is a medium place where I can have good conversations without someone questioning my right to exist.

                Questioning your right to exist sound quite stupid, you obviously exist (Let’s not go full Descartes now) and that settles any discussion in my POV.

                As you just said: I can see where you come from and I can respect that, however I don’t fully agree with it.

                Nonetheless it has been a great pleasure to disagree with you and learn about your POV, thanks for stepping up to the task and giving me food for thought.

                • Oni_eyes@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  It’s not questioning their existence, it’s questioning their right to do so in the way they choose.

                  Thus the “to” in right to exist. It’s a different argument entirely and you’re casually merging it the same way you did the vaccines are gene therapy nonsense.

                  • Hastur@sh.itjust.worksOPM
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    0
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Thus the “to” in right to exist. It’s a different argument entirely and you’re casually merging it the same way you did the vaccines are gene therapy nonsense

                    Where was I wrong with my, simplified, explanation? Because you’re just shouting “Fake News!” without providing any argument.