We should try to keep this instance as a Free Speech destination, rather than yet another island controlled by the thought police.

Could we please set some rules for defederation? I’d like to suggest these two:

  1. Is it spam?
  2. Is it illegal?

If either is yes, then go ahead and ban it, otherwise allow free discussion and don’t get upset that some people think differently than yourself.

  • Zaphodquixote
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Are you not aware of previous discussions about this?

    It’s getting kinda old tbh. Like, take the time to scroll a c/ before posting there, doubly so for this c/ which isn’t for random stuff like this to begin with.

    • Difficult_Bit_1339M
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      There was another discussion about setting guidelines for de-federation instead of voting for every single instance that someone finds objectionable. I was going to link it to the OP and lock the thread but it appears that the poster of the previous thread has deleted it, so I guess this gets to be the new one.

      • Barbarian
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I wanted to wait for the vote on E-H to get rolling before starting this as the next logical step, but I’m not a fan of the bias in the title and non-comprehensive nature of the body. Assuming nobody does it before me, would it be an issue if I made a new post once that happens?

    • Sentient Loom
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      If you don’t want to have the discussion again, just don’t. It’s 100% okay for a user to post a thread and keep the discussion going. It has no effect on you if you opt out.

      It’s very weird to criticize fellow users for having discussions.

      And this topic will never, ever go away. It’s a permanent fixture of federation.

      • Zaphodquixote
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        You may have forgotten which c/ you’re in. The agora isn’t for random discussions.

        While there’s going to be some repeat subjects, at the time I originally commented, it had just been brought up on this c/ maybe a day before. Which means that this post (at that time) was a duplicate that would split the discussion. Now, it turns out that the previous post had been deleted but the poster, and (had you scrolled down a bit) a mod had stated that they were going to link to it, but this would be the thread for that discussion since it was gone, and I expressed a lack of objection at that point.

        The objection, when it was made, was purely because of the nature of this c/. You can’t clog up an instance functional c/ with repeats of a matter because that makes it impossible to have a cohesive discussion. If you have to bounce between multiple threads, the debate gets both unwieldy, and easy to lose track of.

        But, even is it was a regular c/, a repeat of a subject every day is still excessive.

        • Sentient Loom
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          The ongoing activity in these discussions shows that it’s not over. You just want people who disagree to stop voicing their disagreement.

          • Zaphodquixote
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            You either didn’t read what I wrote, or you’re looking for an argument. It doesn’t matter which, I’m done.