Is defederation from lemmy.world and sh.itjust.works still necessary?
This is more of a question for the admins, but this can certainly be a more open discussion.
Per this thread, beehaw defederated from lemmy.world and sh.itjust.works two months ago, around the time that the reddit exodus was happening. Lemmy was blowing up, those instances had an open sign-up policy, and this meant that admins of other instances (like Beehaw) that wanted to heavily moderate their communities became quickly overwhelmed with the number of users from these two instances. Beehaw defederated to make the workload more realistic.
Two months on, I'm wondering if this defederation is still necessary. It seems to me that Lemmy overall has slowed down a lot, and maybe the flow of users from these outside servers would not be as overwhelming as it was before? I respect the decision of the admins one way or the other - I know that the lack of moderation tools was another factor in this decision. I'm just curious if this is something that has been considered recently?
I genuinely recommend against re-federation for Beehaw.
My unique take and experience from lemmy.one is simply the number of users who simply seek to stir the pot.
My blocklist is full of people from lemm.ee and sh.itjust.works and lemmy.world as well as lemmy.ca . When I compare the number of blocks to the number I've blocked from beehaw or even my own instance; a paltry one or two; I'm only ever seeing trolls or idealogues coming from those instances to argue with my posts no matter how well reasoned they may be. For context; if I tell someone they are absolutely wrong and they persist; they automatically meet my block list. I won't suffer people who aren't going to discuss things civilly or rationally.
Blocking someone because they don't agree with you telling them they are "absolutely wrong" isn't civil or rational discourse. Unless you meant something different?
Who says that is the objective of blocking and why should I extend that courtesy to people who are behaving neither civilly nor rationally?
If I go to a bar and someone next to me keeps chiming in on my conversations with homophobic takes, I'm going to pick up my beer and move away from them (block them). What moral imperative do I have to give them the time of day, and how does letting them constantly shoehorn bigotry into my discussions undermine "civil and rational discourse"? If that person keeps doing this to people, is the bar owner required to allow them to stay, or can they show them the door?
Calls for civility, free speech arguments, etc. are all cudgels used by people who want to go where they want and say what they want without scrutiny and I for one have no desire to adhere to some arbitrary moral standard imposed on me by people who want to behave that way. If you want to behave like an ass and pursue me, then I'm cutting you out of my life. No one would blame me at a bar, why should they on my favorite gaming forums?
As one of the Bar owners of Lemmy World, we show anyone with homophobic takes the door.
I'm curious why you feel the need to constantly chime in as much as possible to prove that lemmy.world is totally safe and wonderful. It speaks for itself that it is not. Why badger and harass people further to sell this? You made your point, when is enough enough? We deserve to have discourse without this being shoved down our throats. At one point lemmy.world claimed it wanted to be the biggest instance be damned the consequences, which included opening the floodgates and allowing anyone to join freely, and that invites all kinds of people in that aren't going to act in good faith, trolls, etc...
Now all of the sudden the message is apparently different and there is a huge problem for you all when people in a separate space so much as try to have a discussion about their experiences. That doesn't sit right with me. There are so many users on there who regularly attack beehaw for no reason, unprovoked and nothing is done about that either.
There's still comments up about the defederation in regards to how lemmy.world users feel about beehaw: "Hopefully beehaw dies off quickly." "Yeah, the level of entitlement is insane." "It’s quite literally free-loading off other instances though. Not just in the content sense, but also the actual monetary cost of the image hosting, etc."
These are just 3 examples. Glossing over all of these issues and trying to paint everything in a good light is just totally dishonest and absurd.
Glad to hear it. I think too many mods/admins fall into the trappings of free speech arguments and "letting healthy dialogue happen" because it's an ideal that we've all sort of internalized, often to our own detriment because we don't want to appear "too biased" or like "power tripping jannies." The reality is it's a pretty simple equation: if someone is sufficiently disruptive that's plenty of reason to remove them.
Indeed, the paradox of tolerance is real https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
At least for me and by the sounds of it, you.
Very real and very much something people need to learn to apply!
The block button doesn't have a set of rules and there is no morally right or wrong way to use it. No one owes people explanations for their use of it. This new idea that you should only use it for specific reasons is not only absurd, but it is unsafe for a large swath of people and it is a toxic idea to keep spreading that as a message. It hurts no one to use the block button and keeps many people safe.
I agree with all of this, I was just pointing out that common understanding (read: my own) of civil and rational discourse doesn't usually include immediately blocking people who don't agree to you telling them they are wrong in absolute terms.
I could be wrong however, happens a lot.
Edit: that is not to day I don't personally block people I think are being arseholes, i 100% do, I just don't claim to be doing so in the defence of civil or rational discourse.
I guess it depends on who you are and what is being said, there's a lot of people I might block ahead of time just to spare myself the issues down the road or the frustration. I try to not reply to them though because they aren't going to change their mind and I'm going to be left feeling crummy after it all. Sometimes talking to certain people even makes them more angry and then they go out and double down and go after other people so I don't want to cause that either if I can help it.
Each to their own, I too have pre-blocked on occasion.
I probably wouldn't hold myself responsible for angry internet people, if I'm engaging in good faith and they get angry that's not on me, trolls gonna troll, but again each to their own.
Telling someone that they are "Absolutely wrong" is within my right and is also a very polite way to indicate to someone to shut up and listen without saying it; and that attempting to talk with me further on the topic will not be civil or fruitful.
Blocking people who persist is a simple mechanism to weed out anyone who refuse to listen to logic or feelings on a matter when they don't align with their own.
Would you rather I be blunt and simply tell idiots to "Shut the fuck up"? Because that's definitely not civility. Don't try to argue semantics here; it's ugly and unnecessary.
Absolutely within your rights, depending on the instance you are on and if the rules are enforced i suppose. Same as anything anybody else says. One of the main draws of the fediverse, no ?
I doubt "Absolutely wrong" would be read as "shut up and listen" in most contexts but i could be in the minority here.
Agreed , i do it too, frequently.
i don't have an opinion on how blunt you should be with people, your call.
Arguing semantics is ugly when done in bad faith ,but i'm not trolling or baiting you , i just happen to think word choice is important in some situations. (for a given value of important, i mean it's not life or death here or anything)
In this case i (personally) read it as "I block people who don't agree with my very well reasoned opinion, even after i graciously explained it to them, they just won't listen to me and keep replying".
and most of that comes from the use of the term "Absolutely wrong" which is an absolute, by definition and leaves no room for other opinions or options.
As you said, you can use whatever words you like, at least one person thinks your use of absolutes in statements detracts from your otherwise cogent arguments, do with that what you will.