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!
You can do the same.
He can do the same, but he’s not the one complaining about the furniture.
If you’re in a bar that you don’t like, it’s true that you can leave, or the people listening to you complain about the bar can leave, but it’s kind of obvious that you saying that is just your way of trying to make the bar annoying to everyone else so you can stay and make it a bar you like instead of going and finding a different one. That might be ‘a’ way to go about things, but it sure does take a persistently annoying person to make it happen. More likely you’ll just get kicked out of the bar because the bartender would rather keep the paying customers that are having fun around, rather than then bitchy ones who just won’t shut about about the decorations.
If you’re in a bar that you DO like, and the other patrons are discussing how to coordinate themselves, then obviously you would take part in that conversation.
And during that conversation, if a small subgroup constantly told you to “leave if you disagree,” then you might kindly suggest that they do the same, which would definitely not get you kicked out of the bar.
Very true, a civilized disagreement can certainly present that way. If that’s what I stumbled into I’d apologize for suggesting it was something else, maybe the level of discourse from related comment strings had me assuming the worse.
I have no issue with certain instances being defederated, so no need.
Should I ever feel the need though, I will kost definitely host a private instance.
Good comeback though mate.
It’s not a comeback because this isn’t a battle of clever insults. It’s a discussion about how to organize and interact.
You don’t have a problem with defederation, but if you DO have a problem with being connected to other instances… That’s the scenario where you can create your own siloed instance and block everybody.
I want to read everybody and talk to everybody.
You may have freedom of speech, but I also have the freedom to not listen to you.
Right, you can block me. But that’s different from denying other people from reading me, and denying me from reading other people.
Also, I’m not the one saying problematic stuff. I’m not afraid of being censored. I’m afraid of being denied access to censored material.
You’re not being denied access to censored material, you’re (mildly) suffering from a lack of access to some material from some locations. I could spin up an instance tomorrow that only federates with platforms that limit their discussion to expired gift cards, and that in no way reduces your access to platforms that (for some reason?) discuss other things, like ‘unexpired’ gift cards (why would anyone bother discussing those? who the hell knows?).
You seem to be confused by the popularity and open access of an instance to mean that it should or must be some democratic, freedom of speech led unmoderated landscape or it isn’t a legitimate platform and shouldn’t exist lest it ‘trick’ someone into thinking it is something it is not. You think because a forum ‘can’ federate with any other group, it ‘must’ federate with ‘all’ other groups, and that is simply not the case.
No I’m saying I’d like it to federate with others, while other people are saying they’d prefer not to. I’ll debate federation, I won’t debate whether I should debate federation.
To “spin up an instance” is not a reasonable solution. To argue generally (across platforms) for the merit of federation is what I’ll cheerfully continue to do because it’s a good and healthy way to engage with people about this exciting new technology.
One server defederating from another is not a case of denying you from reading other people. You have the ability to join another server or make your own. You can even view content without an account. If I invited you into my house and you asked to watch a show on Netflix and I deny you, I am not preventing you from watching Netflix. I’m just not putting it on in my house. You can go home and watch Netflix.
The great thing about Lemmy and the rest of the Fediverse is not that they are all federated, but that you can find a server that blocks what you don’t want to see. You can also create your own server for that purpose.
You almost certainly don’t want to read and talk to ‘everybody’…but leaving off the extreme exceptions, federated instance are more like a sewing group and a motorcycle group and a nazi group and a group of geeks talking about linux rather than a ‘platform’ reddit. The sewing group may like getting together with the nazi group and linux guys at times, but they don’t particularly care for motorcycles so joinging the sewing group and then insisting that it’s censorship if they don’t open up the line of communication to the motorcycle group that you think they should have is dumb.
If someone controlled the entire platform that all these groups are on and they blocked the motorcycle group for some reason, that is censorship, but the fact that you can just ‘join’ the motorcycle group directly, or join the nazi group or the linux geeks who both like talking to the motorcycle group demonstrates that the sewing group isn’t censoring the motorcycle group, they just aren’t interested in joining in the conversations, routing the traffic, listening to all the complaints about the motorcycle memes, etc.
Every group on platform, literally every singe one of them, can and will come up with their own rules. That’s the whole point of them being ‘federated’ instead of just ‘on the same platform’. If it’s popular to federate with any and all other groups, there will be groups that do that, join them and enjoy completely uncensored content. If some groups like it a little quieter, maybe a little less drama, maybe less porn and more academic articles, they will federate with just a few well curated other groups and people who enjoy that will join them, and it won’t infringe on your rights the teeniest, tiniest little bit. You joining one of those groups and insisting that it’s the height of communism because they ‘defederated’ with group X for a reason you didn’t feel raised to your level offense is absolutely meaningless. The fact that it happens on a ‘popular’ instance is precisely the same thing.
Honestly I think 90% of this same complain is the fact that people don’t understand the concept of decentralized platforms and feel tricked that they joined a ‘popular’ one and found out that it isn’t the one in control of everything, and that there isn’t some authority to appeal to, or one target to annoy with enough words in order to get their own way after being in the group for 3 days.