Exploding-heads.com is another instance on Lemmy where alt-right MAGA types tend to reside. Some people on this server want us to defederate from them immediately, some people want to save defederation as a last resort. They have 104 active users (more stats below).

It seems that exploding-heads has also experienced a recent botswarm invasion. This is obviously another point in favor of defederating them, assuming you are worried about botswarms, which is currently being discussed here.

My advice to you all is please try to discuss this in a civil manner, we need not allow them to create divisive conflict inside our communities. No matter how the vote turns out, you’re not going to be able to defederate from your fellow sh.itheads so be nice.

I’ve linked many of the previous discussions below so people who are out of the loop can get a general sense of the situation.

https://sh.itjust.works/post/216888 https://sh.itjust.works/post/225714 https://sh.itjust.works/post/281126 https://sh.itjust.works/post/410325

Lemmy.world just recently defederated them.

https://lemmy.world/post/747912

https://lemmy.world/post/577526

Although this could be considered a point in favor of defederation, it actually means even if we vote to remain federated, people have a great alternative in lemmy.world where they can still participate in our communities and simultaneously be protected from exploding-heads.

Ensuring diversity of servers is beneficial to the platform as a whole, but it is also not our responsibility to bear that burden.

TLDR, just wrap up any last points in this thread before we open the vote tomorrow. Please be civil.

EDIT: To clarify, this isn’t the official vote, this is the final discussion. The vote thread will be posted tomorrow and you will only be allowed to make a single comment saying Aye or Nay.

EDIT2: Vote thread is up, this thread is now locked. Very lively discussion thread sh.itheads. Please try to be more respectful next time.

  • Captain Aggravated
    261·
    2 years ago

    If I were to write such a standing policy for defederation, I think it would read something like this:

    Admins of sh.itjust.works shall defederate with another instance immediately when that instance:

    1. is operated for the purpose of hosting bot accounts for the purposes of spam, scams, denial-of-service attacks, or other traffic generally unwelcome or disruptive to the Fediverse.
    2. is operated for the purpose of posting commercial advertisements to other instances.
    3. is operated primarily for the purpose of illegal or harmful acts, such as sharing child pornography, human trafficking, inciting/facilitating acts of violence or terrorism, etc.
    4. is operated primarily for the purpose of political extremism/radicalization to include rampant bigotry, racism, sexism, calls to violence.
    5. is generally operated in good faith but some temporary issue such as a credential theft has deprived the genuine admins of control of the instance and problematic posts/communities/members are being created. The admins may defederate or refederate as needed to meet this condition.

    Admins or members of sh.itjust.works may call a member vote in the Agora on the matter of defederating when another instance when that instance:

    1. was historically operated in good faith but has more recently entered a state of low moderation; illegal/immoral/spam traffic is posted against the intsance’s own rules with no attempt to moderate.
    2. is a very small instance operated by one or a few individuals to circumvent a ban if ban-worthy behavior continues.
    3. A non-emergency technical issue arises, for example an instance starts sending garbled posts which fill feeds with nonsense, members may request temporary defederation until the glitch is resolved.
    • abrasiveteapotEnglish
      9·
      2 years ago

      I’m not sure how much value a “me too” has over just upvoting, but I broadly agree with the thrust of this proposal.

      I particularly support the “just do it” approach for the blatant transgressors, otherwise we’ll end up in a spiral of constant debate and empower those who will seek to delay it to prevent consquences for unethical activities.

    • Barbarian
      81·
      2 years ago

      This is way outside the scope of the current discussion, but I really hope you save this for later. With a few very minor tweaks, I would wholeheartedly shout it from the rooftops. In its current form, I would heartily endorse it.

      • Captain Aggravated
        61·
        2 years ago

        I am hoping a discussion on setting federation policy comes up, and I will propose the above policies in that discussion.

        For the immediate topic at hand - defederation with exploding_heads - from what I see I would defederate on the basis of my own rule 4. Glancing at the homepage I found multiple examples of bigoted language, and it seems to be welcome there. So, I am in favor of defederation and will be voting aye.

        • carbon_based
          2·
          2 years ago

          Is it sufficient for calling it “primarily” set up for such a purpose? (that’s devil’s advocate now, because what means “primarily” would need to be specified more closely)

    • Spzi@lemm.eeEnglish
      61·
      2 years ago

      I’m from another instance but interested in the topic.

      Appreciate your proposal! Just because it is a proposal. It’s much easier to talk about things with concrete examples.

      Now to my question: Why the “primarily for the purpose”? If the acts/crimes layed out in #2 and #3 were ‘just’ secondary purposes, would that make it any better?

      Similarly, I wonder about #1 and #2 if “operated for the purpose” really catches your intention. Say the instance is operated for the purpose of sharing cat pics, as layed out in the instance description, but the admin just looks the other way when bot accounts take over and ads are posted to other instances.

      I guess my line of reasoning is, the intention or purpose does not matter much. Specifically, the declared intention and purpose does not matter much. If it acts like a bad actor, treat it like a bad actor.

      • Captain AggravatedEnglish
        6·
        2 years ago

        I would hope to debate that kind of phraseology in a discussion thread for adopting a standing policy, as @Barbarian points out, we’re outside the scope of this particular thread.

        The main ideas in my head were to avoid constant defederations the second one problematic community pops up as was the case in our own recent the_donald incident. If my understanding of events was right, one or two users joined up and created a community, and by the time our own admin team removed the community (and I believe those member accounts) some other instances were either talking about or had actually defederated us. I don’t know if throwing away a baby every time you notice some bath water like that is healthy for the fediverse; I think that’s what blocking individual users or communities as members is there for.

        I was generally trying to empower our admins to unilaterally defederate for the obvious “oh yeah this is an ad spam instance, it’s 13 hours old and they’ve sent out 300,000 comments about “offshore c1alis” so we can just go ahead and defed them.” I see no need for a week of deliberation and a week of voting on that matter. I think #1 in the second section covers the case of “It started out as a cat memes instance but the admin isn’t enforcing their rules about spam bots.”

        I do think you have a point about divorcing intent from behavior though; if for no other reason than to deny ammunition to the incessant whatabouters that seem to swarm around topics like this.

        • Spzi@lemm.eeEnglish
          1·
          2 years ago

          we’re outside the scope of this particular thread.

          I’m not sure if others mind, I understood the OP as an invitation to thoroughly discuss the topic. But I think we’re pretty much in consensus anyways.

          The main ideas in my head were to avoid constant defederations the second one problematic community pops up as was the case in our own recent the_donald incident. If my understanding of events was right, one or two users joined up and created a community, and by the time our own admin team removed the community (and I believe those member accounts) some other instances were either talking about or had actually defederated us. I don’t know if throwing away a baby every time you notice some bath water like that is healthy for the fediverse; I think that’s what blocking individual users or communities as members is there for.

          Agreed, this would be too early for defederation, a too low threshold. I think we generally agree about what should be done. At this point, it revolves around what the right wording is to express the idea. Or at which scale of the spectrum from ‘hardly noticable’ to ‘it’s everywhere’ a defederation would be appropriate.

          I think #1 in the second section covers the case of “It started out as a cat memes instance but the admin isn’t enforcing their rules about spam bots.”

          You’re right, sorry I forgot about that when writing my comment.

          I do think you have a point about divorcing intent from behavior though; if for no other reason than to deny ammunition to the incessant whatabouters that seem to swarm around topics like this.

          Thanks. Yes, that’s also something to keep in mind. Maybe it isn’t too wise to lay out the rules too strict and explicit. They will game it. So again it is about striking a balance between ‘we simply do what we find reasonable without any reasons given’ and ‘here are the exact rules by which we defederate’ (aka a detailed guide how to avoid it while still doing your thing).

          • Captain AggravatedEnglish
            1·
            2 years ago

            And while I have a tendency to structure such things like the FARs, I don’t know how “Part 61 §52(A)(1)© clearly states that…” we need to get.

    • merc
      84·
      2 years ago

      for the purpose of political extremism/radicalization

      How do you define that?

      Many people consider their opponents to be political extremists. Many on the right wing would argue that BLM protesters were political extremists. They had confrontations with police, there was some destruction of property at BLM protests. Or, what about the protests / riots in France over pensions? Or the convoy protests in Ottawa, Canada?

      In my mind there’s a definite difference between BLM protests and say the Jan 6 insurrection, but it would be really hard to find an objective definition that included the “good” radical protests and excluded the “bad” ones.

      • tobor
        122·
        2 years ago

        How do you define that?

        They literally included it in the second part of the sentence you left out

        to include rampant bigotry, racism, sexism, calls to violence.

        Or, what about the protests / riots in France over pensions? Or the convoy protests in Ottawa, Canada?

        You’re literally “whatabouting” this, no need put strawmen in here

        • merc
          31·
          2 years ago

          You don’t seem to know what “whatabouting” means.

          Yes, I’m asking whether riots in France or BLM protests count as political extremism. Does rampant bigotry against pro-life protesters count?

      • Captain Aggravated
        6·
        2 years ago

        “good is a point of view” --Darth Sidious.

        For the purposes of this discussion I’m deliberately not picking sides; “Let’s go kill some of our political opponents” has no place on this platform.

        • merc
          21·
          2 years ago

          The bar was set at “rampant bigotry”, not “let’s go kill some of our political opponents”.

          Does rampant bigotry against billionaires count?

          • Takatakatakatakatak@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            33·
            2 years ago

            If you can’t advocate for killing billionaires on this platform I’m really not interested in it. How are we supposed to solve any of our problems without violent uprising? That advocates that we keep living in this shitty status quo forever.

            • carbon_based
              31·
              2 years ago

              Angy upvote. But the violent uprisings were rarely successful, mostly because the new leaders would just be violent again. Realising better ideas is successful.