• aspseka@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    2·
    1 year ago

    Abstain. For one: Let everyone for themselves decide what they want to see or what they don’t want to see. We’re grown-up and don’t need to tell other people what they should not or are not supposed to see.

    (Just today there is a the_donald community sprouting on our instance. Should we allow that but defederate others?)

    But the actual reason: let’s first agree on guidelines when to defederate and then measure them against these.

  • Shihali@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    1·
    1 year ago

    Nay.

    I see the argument for defederating from instances with no active administration because they could start hosting egregiously illegal content at any time without recourse. And after going through the initial Hexbear wave I am for defederating instances with a strong trolling and brigading culture until we can allowlist on an individual basis. (This sounds rather like Beehaw, doesn’t it?)

  • Seraph089@sh.itjust.worksMEnglish
    32·
    1 year ago

    Nay

    While I do believe that defederation should be reserved for very serious cases, I don’t think it needs to go as far as “egregiously illegal” before we consider it.

    And to Lemmygrad specifically, they’re the perfect example of why. They may not be the worst filth on the internet, but their reputation as a hive of tankies is casting a bad light on the entirety of Lemmy. Anybody connected to them is going to appear guilty by association, so defederation is a symbolic gesture as much as anything else.

  • rektifier@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    21·
    1 year ago

    Nay for now. While there’s a few communities on lemmygrad that I want to see like Late Stage Capitalism, lemmygrad has been defederated since day one, and all of us (should) have known this when we joined, so there’s no hurry to refederate with them.

    The real solution is for Lemmy to let users block instances from their own view, then all the defederation discussions will be moot. When that happens, we should do as you proposed - federate as much as permitted by law.

    • Socsa@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      2·
      1 year ago

      I still think this is naive in the face of real information warfare. This feels like saying “Nazis are welcome here but they aren’t allowed on the second floor so if you don’t want to see them stick to that.”

      Eventually the Nazis will just drive everyone else away and take over the second floor as well. Because the Nazis have no such holdups about acting in good faith.

      I believe that communities must take measures to actively protect themselves, particularly from those who would abuse a community’s values in order to remake them. I don’t think the abstract threat of slippery slopes rises to the real threat posed by those who continually demonstrate a proclivity for subterfuge and sabotage.

      • rektifier@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        1·
        1 year ago

        I should clarify. When the skinheads from the Nazi house down the street come over to visit, they must follow our instance-wide and community rules. This should be a basic fediquette for everyone. If they repeatedly fail to do that then we will have to defederate them. But if they check the swastika at the door and keep the Nazism to themselves while they’re here, I don’t see why not. Most of the calls for defederation so far have been about people not wanting to see activities happening on remote communities on certain instances.

        • Socsa@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
          41·
          1 year ago

          Ok but how many times will we make the mistake of letting the Nazis in the front door before we learn this lesson?

          • rektifier@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
            1·
            1 year ago

            It all depends on how the other instance responds.

            • If their admin don’t want to do anything about users causing problems in other instances then I’d say defederate temporarily (1 month or more) each time their users break our rules.
            • If their admin actively encourages this kind of behaviour then defederate permanently.
            • If they have rules against bad behaviour on other instances and non-negligible consequences for violations then try to work with them, but still defederate temporarily (~1 week) when our/their moderation team can’t keep up.
  • atzanteol@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    21·
    1 year ago

    Nay.

    “Everything that is legal” sounds good in theory, but isn’t great in practice. Holding instances to some reasonable minimum threshold is important to foster a community. We shouldn’t set that bar too low (or too high).

    • MomoTimeToDie@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      12·
      1 year ago

      “Everything that is legal” sounds good in theory, but isn’t great in practice

      I have yet to see any reason to agree with this

        • MomoTimeToDie@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
          15·
          1 year ago

          So ban spam accounts and don’t fucking make it difficult for everyone else to rose other instances, especially those that aren’t even spam.

  • Ludwig van Beethoven@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    1·
    1 year ago

    Nay, quite simply EH, Grad, and (currently voting) Hexbear are not moderating to a standard required by the rules of this instance.

    Also IIRC this [Vote] post will not count, start a [Discussion] instead. (Check the “Changes to the Agora” post).

  • this@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    11·
    1 year ago

    Nay - there are plenty of good reasons to defederated with an instance other than illegal content and not all are political/social in nature. An instance entirely made of spam bots for example, may require defederation just to keep this place from dying a spammy death. I see where your coming from but even if we generally want to go that route, its a bad rule.