How the beehaw defederation affects us
ou might have seen that we've been defederated from beehaw.org. I think there's some necessary context to understand what this means to the users on this instance.
How federation works
The way federation works is that the community on beehaw.org is an organization of posts, and you're subscribed to it despite your account being on lemmy.world. Now someone posts on that community (created on beehaw.org), on which server is that post hosted?
It's hosted on both! It's hosted on any instance that has a subscriber. It's also hosted on lemmy.ml, lemmygrad.ml, etc. Every instance that has a subscriber is going to have a copy of this post. That's why if you host your own instance, you'll often get a ton of text data just in your own server.
And the copies all stay in sync with each other using ActivityPub. So you're reading the post that's host on lemmy.world, and someone with an account on beehaw.org is reading the same post on beehaw.org, and the posts are kept in sync via ActivityPub. Whenever someone posts to that community or comments on a post, that data is shared to all the versions across the fediverse, and these versions are kept in sync. So up until 5 hours ago, they were the same post!
"True"-ness
A key concept that will matter in the next section is the idea of a "true" version. Effectively, one version of these posts is the "true" version, that every other community reflects. The "true" version is the one hosted on the instance that hosts the community. So the "true" version of a beehaw.org community post is the one actually hosted on beehaw.org. We have a copy, but ours is only a copy. If you post to our copy, it updates the "true" version on beehaw.org, and then all the other instances look to the "true" version on beehaw to update themselves.
The same goes for communities hosted on lemmy.world or lemmy.ml. Defederation affects how information is shared between instances. If you keep track of where the "true" version is hosted, it becomes a lot easier to understand what is going on.
How defederation works
Now take that example post from earlier, the one on beehaw.org. The "true" version of the post is on beehaw.org but the post is still hosted on both instances (again, it has a copy hosted on all instances). Let's say someone with an account on beehaw.org comments on that post. That comment is going to be sent to every version of that post via ActivityPub, as the "true" version has been updated. That is, every version EXCEPT lemmy.world and sh.itjust.works. So users on lemmy.world and sh.itjust.works won't get that comment, because we've been defederated from beehaw.org. If we write a comment, it will only be visible from accounts on lemmy.world, because we posted to a copy, but our copy is now out of sync with the "true" version. So we can appear to interact with the post, but those interactions are ONLY visible by other lemmy.world accounts, since our comments aren't send to other versions. As the "true" version is hosted on beehaw, and we no longer get beehaw updates due to defederation, we will not see comments from ANY other community on those posts (including from other defederated instances like sh.itjust.works).
The same goes for posting to beehaw communities. We can still do that. However, the "true" version of those communities are the ones on beehaw, so our posts will not be shared to other instances via ActivityPub. And all of this is true for Beehaw users with our communities. Beehaw users can continue to see and interact with Lemmy.world communities, but those interactions are only visible to other Beehaw users, since the "true" versions of the Lemmy.world communities (the ones sent to/synced with every other instance) is the Lemmy.world one.
Communities on other instances, for example lemmy.ml, are unaffected by this. Lemmy.world and beehaw.org users will still be able to interact with those communities, but posts/comments from lemmy.world users won't be visible to beehaw.org users, as defederation prevents our posts/comments from being sent to the version of these posts hosted on beehaw.org. However, as the "true" version is the one on the third instance, we can still see everything from beehaw.org users. So we see a more filled in version than the beehaw users.
Let's not waste our breath pretending a place called "antiwoke" is anything but a racist right wing cesspool. There's literally no other purpose it could serve.
And of course you have censorship on the internet. You need to censor, literally every platform out there that has existed for a reasonable amount of time on the internet has to censor even if it's just to comply with local laws.
In other words, if you don't censor you open up your doors to hosting child porn, it's that simple. So I hope people can see that censorship is a necessary evil and not some binary choice you can make.
So the question is what you censor, not if you censor. And of course there will be things that people straight up don't want. You don't have to be accepting of everything. In fact it's actively detrimental to be.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
I'm not gonna blame anyone if they want to kick out communities like "antiwoke" because it's quite clear what's gonna come out of them.
Perhaps we should wait until they actually do something unforgivably evil before we ban them. Pre-emptively banning anyone who disagrees with us is, IMHO, not what I want. As above, it does appear to be popular though.
I'm sorry, but there is no need or benefit to be found in tolerance for the intolerant. Nobody has to give them a platform. Nobody should. And if you seriously believe a community called "antiwoke" has anything positive or useful to bring to the table, I have a very nice bridge looking to get rid of.
Yeah, believe it or not, I don't support banning people just because I disagree with them. You might be surprised how many of us there are.
Believe it or not, ne neither!
But this is also not something I have said. This is a strawman argument you created, consciously or not.
What I actually said was that we shouldn't provide a platform to the intolerant. Because they will seek to undermine and destroy our tolerance. There's a bit more nuance in my argument than "ban people just because they disagree with me". You kinda missed that.
That’s literally what you wrote. It’s your entire premise:
You don’t like the name of the magazine and you want it banned, even though it hasn’t broken any rules. You just don’t like what the name implies.
No, what I actually wrote was
I already called you out for being dishonest in your argument, why continue? Address what I actually said instead of the shitty strawman you try and fail to create.
I'm not in the business in being naive about it, terribly sorry. Show me a community that labels itself as "antiwoke" that isn't a racist cesspool and I'll entertain the argument.
It takes some impressive mental gymnastics to claim that doesn’t mean you want the magazine banned. That’s exactly what it means. If you don’t want it banned, why do you keep saying it shouldn’t have a platform? Why not just own your position? You’re clearly comfortable with it. Is it the word “ban” which you don’t like?
He's not saying he wants to ban people that disagree with him. You are disagreeing with him, he has no desire for you to be banned... he's clearly stated a specific subsect of people he doesn't believe deserve a platform. And you keep misrepresenting his view and framing it as anyone that disagrees with him about anything.
He doesn't like the magazine name and/or premise.
He wants it banned.
He wants a magazine which he doesn't like banned. There is no other way to interpret his words. I'm not claiming he wants all magazines he doesn't like banned. He wants this magazine which he doesn't like banned.
I mean, there is, because he told you his reasoning... you're too dense to see it even though he has very slowly spelled it out for you.
Again, because you quite obviously don't catch on to things the first time, nor second, nor third... let me explain it to you again. He wants them banned, not because of the fact he doesn't like them. It is because he believes that subsect of people don't deserve a platform. The fact he doesn't like them is not the determining factor for his desire to ban them.
Hooollleeee fuck... you are slow.
Oh we're replacing a shitty strawman with another one now?
Yes, congrats. If I repeatedly say they shouldn't be given a platform that's pretty much the same as me saying we should ban them.
That's really not the point. The point is that you are trying to claim that I want to ban anyone who disagrees with me when what I am saying, also quite explicitly, that we should ban people who are intolerant. Those are certainly two circles in a Venn diagram with some overlap, but two seperate circles nevertheless, and I'm only advocating for one of them. (The intolerant one, just to be very clear.)
I understand you have your reasons for not liking the magazine. I'm not claiming you don't. Whatever your reasons, you don't like the magazine and you want it banned. Not because it has broken any rules, but because you don't like it.
Again, terribly sorry that I'm not going to be naive about it.
People joke about leopards eating people's faces for a reason. We don't have to act like these leopards eating people's faces are worth letting in because this time they totally won't eat people's faces even if they have done that every single time they have been let in anywhere else.
As I said, I believe you have your reasons. I'm merely pointing out the obvious fact that you want the magazine banned because you don't like it, not because it has broken any rules.
Yes, in the same way I "don't like" magazines called "antigay" and "antijews".