"Antiwoke" magazin on kbin.social posting bullshit like "how to end Wokeness" and "Time to reject the extrem trans lobby harming our society" How to report ? he is the moderator of that magazin.

@ernest how do I report a Magazin on kbin.social ? There is a usere called "ps" who is posting to his own "antiwoke" Magazin on kbin.social. Please remove this and dont give them a chance to etablish them self on kbin.social. When I report his stuff it will go to him because he is the moderator of the magazin? Seems like a problem. Screenshot of the "antiwoke" Magazin /sub on kbin.social. 4 Headlines are visible, 2 exampels: "Time to reject the extrem trans lobby harming our society" "How to end wokeness" .social 📎

edit: dont feed the troll, im shure ernest will delet them all when he sees this. report and move on.

Edit 2 : Ernest responded:
"I just need a little more time. There will likely be a technical break announced tomorrow or the day after tomorrow. Along with the migration to new servers, we will be introducing new moderation tools that I am currently working on and testing (I had it planned for a bit later in my roadmap). Then, I will address your reports and handle them very seriously. I try my best to delete sensitive content, but with the current workload and ongoing relocation, it takes a lot of time. I am being extra cautious now. The regulations are quite general, and I would like to refine them together with you and do everything properly. For now, please make use of the option to block the magazine/author."

❤

theyresocool,

They hate being woke so they love being asleep.

Rusticus,

Woke: “the belief there are systemic injustices in American society and the need to address them.” This definition is from Ron DeSantis lead counsel.

I don’t understand how anyone can argue with the concept of woke. If you are “anti-woke” you are a racist mother fucker.

fluxion,

To happily support authoritarian overthrows and corporate corruption of government you need to literally be anti-woke, so it makes sense. Full on mask-off, yet still veiled.

Tenthrow,
@Tenthrow@lemmy.world avatar

At least five people who voted on this comment are "anti-woke"

Snapz,
@Snapz@beehaw.org avatar

Let's all agree that of its many issues, locking/deleted open threats to targeted minority groups and pro supremacist propaganda meant to hurt or influence vulnerable people was NOT a drawback of the Reddit experience.

Yes, it's a difficult thing to enforce a subjective line of a basic standard of decency, but it's also what a society is and one of the main reasons we faucet as people. The quality of a group is shown in how they accommodate the weakest and most vulnerable among them.

If we aren't prioritizing a way to send this CHUD and people liked them to the hypothetical edge of town, to be sure they can't bombard the young person struggling with their gender identity with targeted hate, then what are we doing here?

Ghona76,

The entire point about federation is that these issues largely solve themselves.

Don't like the community...block it.

Instance is going to shit...defederate it.

The people on the anti-woke community can continue screaming into their echo chamber and no one who doesn't want to has to listen to it without resorting to censorship and banning. Let assholes be assholes in their own instance and the rest of us can just close our sound-proof windows and not have to listen to them.

Lifecoach5000,

Hard agree. I myself like to keep an eye on people with opposing political views just to know what’s being said in their circles.

jazzbox,

Allowing fascist/bigoted echo chambers to exist at all just facilitates more hate being brought into the world. Obviously one can only do so much, but I think there is some sort of obligation there for both an individual and a community to stop the spread of hate.

HerrLewakaas,

You can't censor people's opinions on the internet. If you lock them out everywhere they set up their own site, and they've got every right to do so. Banning certain unwanted opinions has never and will never work, that's not how you deal with extremism effectively.

jazzbox,

Sure, but the goal here is not necessarily to eliminate hate-speech entirely, since that is obviously impossible; the goal is to make it hard to find. You do that by not allowing hateful communities on your website. I don't want an impressionable teenager, for example, to get sucked into a fascist echo chamber on the same sites they use to talk about video games. That was (still is?) a huuuge problem in the YouTube gaming scene.

Ideally there would be systems in place to stop the fascists from creating their own echo chamber instance, but I understand why people would be scared of that power being abused. So fine, let them then. But they should never see the light of day.

Genuinely - if you do not think this is effective, how do you think we can deal with extremism effectively?

panda_paddle,

I disagree. You can't eliminate hate by shoving it in a corner. You have to try to fight speech with speech. Your proposal only splits the group into 2 opposing echo chambers. The one that you consider right and the one they consider right. Neither will ever have their opinions questioned and both will have their opinions reinforced by the peers around them. I had friends absolutely shocked by a 2021 gallop poll showing only 34% of Americans supported trans youth playing sports for their preferred gender. They spent so much time listening to people on reddit agree with them, that they couldn't fathom they were in the minority. Creating an insulated safe space only fosters ignorance.

aceshigh,
@aceshigh@lemmy.world avatar

You have to try to fight speech with speech.

not person you were talking to. people are emotional, not logical. you can't use logic to talk to someone who has illogical beliefs.

TheLurker,

I get what you are saying but what you are suggesting is not technically feasible with this type of technology.

Only the admin of an instance can shut it down. Best we can do is block instances which allow such content.

This network isn't centrally controlled, It is like email. You can't stop someone from having an email address, all you can do is block the sending address or the server as a whole. And even then, that person or server you blocked can still email other people who want such content.

You could defederate every other instance in the world which uses ActivityPub and those other instances will still exist. In that scenario you haven't stopped the spread of anything, you just can't see it anymore.

jazzbox,

Definitely, and that is one of my main fears/critiques of this whole fediverse thing. Ideally there will be a system in place to help mitigate that, if there isn't already. Defederating is also effective.

I guess my point is that any instance (or website in general) that was not started with the inherent goal of being a fascist echo chamber should be completely intolerant of fascist/bigoted ideas. Especially the big ones, like lemmy.world and Kbin. And they should do everything within their power to not let those ideas exist. The paradox of tolerance and all that.

Some people are too far gone and will just run away into the shadows, sure. I'm more concerned about the "regular" people who are exposed to those ideas against their own will and get sucked into this cycle of hatred.

CaptObvious,

Since you clearly don’t, and seemingly don’t want to, understand the fediverse or free speech, why not just go back to Reddit where you can be happier?

Censorship has never and will never prevent ideas from existing, being discussed, and spreading. It doesn’t even slow them down. It just drives them into spaces where you can’t see. Lookup Soviet-era samizdat for a better discussion.

jazzbox,

Since you clearly don’t, and seemingly don’t want to, understand the fediverse or free speech, why not just go back to Reddit where you can be happier?

Okay let's deescalate a bit... One can enjoy something and still criticize it. I did not think expressing a worry about the spread of fascist ideology and hate-speech would invite backlash. Can you seriously not relate to that? There has got to be some kind of miscommunication going on here.

Censorship has never and will never prevent ideas from existing, being discussed, and spreading. It doesn’t even slow them down. It just drives them into spaces where you can’t see.

Yes, I want to drive Nazis and bigots into spaces where they are hard to find. They degenerate whatever space they're allowed in. I'm not naive enough to think this will extinguish them, and I wasn't trying to even imply that, but the alternative is to do what - just give them a platform to spew hatred? Do you have a solution? Or are you just going to spit out baseless accusations and tell people to leave if they're not complacent with hate-speech in a space they enjoy?

I'm down to have a discussion but show some kindness.

CaptObvious,

...There has got to be some kind of miscommunication going on here....

Perhaps. To paraphrase, I hear your position as "I don't like what they're saying. Exile them." Is that accurate?

Extremism of all stripes is dangerous. If you don't like what someone is saying, be a grown up and ignore them.

I'm a former journalist. I won't endorse censorship, even (especially) when it's speech I dislike. You win a debate by presenting a better argument, not by gagging your opponent.

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” – Evelyn Beatrice Hall

jazzbox,

Perhaps. To paraphrase, I hear your position as “I don’t like what they’re saying. Exile them.” Is that accurate?

That is my solution, but I think the communication issue may lie in the intent. I want forum sites such as Lemmy or Kbin to encourage dialogue from a diverse user base, and I think that allowing fascist and bigoted rhetoric inhibits that goal. Those kinds of people have proven that they almost never discuss in good faith, and I think they will push away individuals who are looking for a space to have good faith discussions. You may have heard of the paradox of tolerance. If you haven't, I'd encourage you to read about it. I’d like to hear what you think.

Also, I know that you were paraphrasing, but I want to be completely clear that this is not because “I don’t like what they’re saying.” Obviously, I think it is healthy to encounter differing opinions. But I believe the rhetoric I’m talking about is more than mere “differing opinions” … it is hurtful, dangerous, and attempts to both justify and normalize discrimination. All while providing no value whatsoever.

Extremism of all stripes is dangerous. If you don’t like what someone is saying, be a grown up and ignore them.

You and I might be able to parse through the dogshit on the internet, but there are people who can’t. I think there is an obligation to keep alt-right propaganda out of the same space that an impressionable teenager would use to talk about Minecraft. Especially now, there have been far too many kids radicalized in that way. It’s far too easy to weaponize someone’s hatred and insecurities.

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” – Evelyn Beatrice Hall

If you broaden the scope, I wholeheartedly agree. But websites are not countries, moderators are not governments, and content policies are not laws. To be banned from a website does not deprive one of their rights. I really don’t think you need to compromise your morals to have a space, or participate in a space, that has no toleratence bigotry and discrimination. Plus, there are already established limits to free speech that attempt to keep peace and order, like the “you can’t yell fire in a crowded theater” clause. I don't see my desires here as much different than that.

CaptObvious,

Let me try to respond.

I want forum sites such as Lemmy or Kbin to encourage dialogue from a diverse user base....

But only so long as you approve of their message.

Those kinds of people....

Rules for thee but not for me. That's where this line of bigotry inevitably leads.

I'm well aware of the Paradox of Tolerance. What you're complaining about is nowhere near that limit.

...the rhetoric I’m talking about is... hurtful, dangerous, and attempts to both justify and normalize discrimination. All while providing no value whatsoever.

From my perspective, you're the one attempting to justify and normalize discrimination while, by extension of your own argument, removing the value of an opposing viewpoint from the discussion.

Bigotry and discrimination, like art, are in the eye of the beholder. How is your eye more qualified than anyone else's?

There are a very small number of limitations on First Amendment rights in the US: obscenity, child pornography, defamatory speech, false advertising, true threats, and fighting words (American Library Association). Which of these covers the speech you would have the admin ban for you?

TheLurker,

There is no way to "mitigate" what I have described. To use a cliche, it is a feature not a bug.

It is a decentralised system. To have a centralised control mechanism would fundamentally change it from a decentralised to a centralised system.

Blocking and defederating from communities and instances which break community guidelines is the best we can do. It won't make the problem go away but it does help to limit the reach of it.

jazzbox,

Yeah :/ It's quite unfortunate. I love the idea of ActivityPub/the Fediverse and think it is a net positive, but the fact that Nazis can use it to easily platform their ideas just leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

I'm hoping that admins of all instances (or at least the biggest instances) will be vigilant against combating hate speech so that "Fediverse" or "Lemmy" won't have the same connotations as 4chan for example. I guess time will tell

TheLurker,

They will. There were similar problem with email in the late 90s with the proliferation of open mail relays which just allowed bulk spamming and scamming communications.

Pretty much all of them were universally blocked. But we still get spam and scam emails. So there is a good use case that highlights the problem.

wampastompa,

this entire thread is such a massive waste of time & an embarassing dogpile of pessimistic blanket assumptions.

“X will inevitably turn into Y if we don’t do something now!”

or maybe facilitating the existence of two fediverses on opposite, equally-corrupt ends of the political spectrum will only lead to the maximum possible amount of hate in the end (from both sides). sounds fun!

pessimism versus optimism. the latter exposes us to more risk (someone could be a shit, racist person down to their very core), but i think the potential reward is better for giving people the benefit of the doubt that they just don’t understand. that’s just me though. feel free to disagree. i won’t think you’re rotten for doing so.

in general, people don’t just wake up and decide to change their opinion on X out of nowhere. and telling someone to think something is useless… at best.

people need to be surrounded by different people just living their lives in order to open their own eyes and form their own opinions. otherwise everything they see on TV/FB/etc is true in their minds.

“nipping this in the bud” early just prevents self-discovery that can lead to less racism/hate existing in the grand scheme of things.

not all people who have a bad/hateful opinion are bad/evil/right-wing. i reckon it’s better for all of us if these people gain passive/active exposure to those they’re biased against and realize the media is wrong, rather than reinforce that opinion by hiding away in this thread, spending countless hours peering into our glass ball and seeing the future that will 100% without a doubt inevitably come to pass (because all far right ppl are exactly the same and deeply motivated by hate on a daily basis and are not only unwilling to change but unable!)

we need more cross-political-spectrum crossover in the world. not less. if you/someone doesnt have the mental energy to interact with or see certain people, that’s totally fine. mental heath matters. block/mute & go about your day. but i think letting everyone else continue to interact positively/neutrally in the meantime is desirable. some people aren’t bothered by certain things and can discuss them with “the other side” to positive effect. let them do so?

interacting with somebody who has differing/bad opinions shouldn’t be seen as support for those opinions, though i think sometimes it’s seen that way.

walls are bad when they’re between different types of people, but they’re desirable when they’re protecting you from the elements or providing privacy. live within your own walls when you need to, for your own well-being/sanity. but we shouldn’t encourage walls to be built that keep out hundreds of good people just because there’s a handful of bad apples in the bunch. that’s pessimistic as hell & sounds like something straight from a certain US Presidential campaign trail.

if the goal of an instance is just to co-exist exclusively with like-minded people, that’s fine i guess, but if the goal is to encourage diversity, personal/societal growth, creativity, then defederating with anyone the moment they have a different/uninformed opinion is a bit bonkers.

not every hateful sentence (from the reader’s perspective) stems from a hateful thought. nobody can read minds.

sometimes the hate is assumed because of our own biases (which is kinda ironic).

sometimes it’s just an uninformed or ignorant thought (until everyone goes and proves them “right” by fighting ignorance with fire).

if everyone just engaged with others as their mental/emotional capacity permitted without expecting the same from others, we’d be better off in my opinion. we don’t need instance god-admins to protect us.

<not proofread at all. sent from my Nintendo Wii>

MelonTheMan,

I agree that walling off achieves nothing. Content should be blocked when it originates from bad faith.

That being said I think these mags are in bad faith.

Zebrazilla,
Zebrazilla avatar

Well said.

KIM_JONG_JUICEBOX,

Can’t you just block users and communities you don’t want to read from?

ArghZombies,

Alternatively, instead of allowing all sorts of bigotted comments to be posted and letting people make up there own minds whether they agree with bigots or not, let's just not let bigoted comments be posted.

You can't 'both sides' bigotry.

KingStrafeIV,

It’s not about political disagreement though, it’s about the fundamental rights of people to exist.

The defederation questions are not over disagreements on “how much should we pay in taxes”, it’s “should this group of people be allowed to publicly exist”.

Is it “healthy political discourse” to allow antisemitic propaganda in furtherance of fascism? I’ve noticed the vast majority of “free speech absolutists” belong to groups that are not currently being targeted by hate groups.

wampastompa,

who decides what is hate speech? and why must it always be handled for the individuals by the authorities? sometimes i think people post harmful things because they’re confused/scared/ignorant. in fact, i’d venture to guess that’s what happens a majority of the time. in these cases, their mind isn’t set in stone, making it a prime time for someone to step in and engage in a hopefully-fruitful conversation with said person. even if they dont change their mind, they just had +1 neutral/pleasant conversation with someone they would normally write off (thanks to mainstream media) as unreasonable/aggressive/whatever.

stopping these engagements from happening is worth the risk that a truly bad apple exists in the public eye (before being banned or whatever), because these seemingly inconsequential interactions can lead to a better social ecosystem that is more self-sustaining. one that balances itself out from within, by individuals’ efforts, not the efforts of admins. admins should focus on keeping obviously illegal activity at a minimum, not on deciding what is morally good or bad. individuals have the block/mute button for that?

it’s impossible to erect walls, virtual or physical, that keep only bad actors at bay. inevitably, vulnerable individuals/people will find themselves trapped on the wrong side of enemy lines. in real life, that’s much scarier than online. defederating from one’s neighborhood isn’t a thing. online networks can indirectly (maybe??) help make those neighborhoods better by leading by example and providing evidence that everyone can get along and benefits from doing so. people in certain parts of the world will never physically interact with X or Y kind of people. the internet is people’s only exposure to certain cultures and ideas. might as well help make that exposure good instead of hoping whatever exposure they get elsewhere is positive.

i think the internet can be an incredibly powerful force for changing minds for the better (which can create a safer IRL space for all, indirectly), but that doesnt happen if zero discussion ever happens, even if that means including some differing/bad voices at times.

we aren’t fully aware of the powerful tool in our hands, especially when outside the grasp of centralized capitalist platforms. now’s the time to reimagine social media and not play by some megacorp’s growth-at-all-costs rules. hate fuels algorithms. hate keeps their social media platforms alive & monetized. we’ve been conditioned to believe hate must always beget hate… because it’s profitable. online, everyone is weirdly guilty until proven innocent. it’s easier to believe that’s true when people aren’t in front of you too. they’re just NPCs with funny names & avatars, not complex humans that have their share of good & bad days.

just because something is said, or discussed, doesn’t make it true or dangerous. the human mind is cool because it can can basically create VMs and toy around with ideas without risking damage to the rest of the mind. devil’s advocates aren’t devils when they take off their cosplay horns.

“free speech” to me isn’t being able to harass or incite violence. it means being free to say & think things without always meaning them. or being allowed to be wrong/uninformed. freedom of speech depends heavily on context, and i think that’s partially why encouraging free speech online is so hard (compared to with friends or in offline classrooms), but it’s worth attempting (i think). IRL, it’s far easier to see when someone is genuinely curious, joking, aggressive, confused, etc.

the alternative is for any and all controversial discussions to only happen behind closed doors, online or offline. but that seems likely to improve nothing from where it stands today.

it’s easy to de-federate from instances with content deemed hateful to some (yes, i worded that carefully), but that means that certain individuals’ notions of those other people will never be challenged. this protects one’s fediverse but shifts the conflict IRL potentially. not everyone can just “turn off” the ignorant people around them.

do you know how hard it would be for a far right person to hate the queer community (for example) if they found themselves surrounded by non-combative, creative, talented, similar (in other ways lol) people? i think (i’m only guessing) that a similar thing happened back in the day with tattoos/piercings. seeing normal (& exceptional) people regularly that look a certain way can absolutely erode preconceived notions over time, like water drops carving the Grand Canyon.

that is what changes minds. seeing other people, kinda like you, also kinda unlike you, living life and being cool.

i think wodespread defederation ensures all negative preconceived notions largely stay in tact. federating and handling issues on a case-by-case basis (or letting individuals handle their own disagreements, gasp!) just seems like a better strategy to me. but i could very well he wrong. i have zero relevant credentials to speak on any of this.

i guess i just personally believe individual humans can & should look after themselves, their friends, and their communities without the need for overprotection by centralized powers — most of the time.

maybe i went off topic there a bit. sorry! this entire discussion fascinates me and frustrates me to no end. i truly think we could miss out on an opportunity to create a better Internet/network based on how this is all handled.

KingStrafeIV,

First of all, thanks for engaging in a thoughtful way. I’m going to try to respond to all your questions, apologies if I inadvertently group a few.

who decides what is hate speech?

Depends on the context. Often an individually community determines what falls into that category for them, but for example the UN defines it as “offensive discourse targeting a group or an individual based on inherent characteristics (such as race, religion or gender) and that may threaten social peace.” source

and why must it always be handled for the individuals by the authorities?

It’s definitely not always handled for individuals by authorities. In case of private individuals (e.g. lemmy instance owners), they may simply not want to pay for / engage with that content. In case of public individuals (e.g. elected representatives), they have a duty to act on behalf of their constituents to enact protections to allow everyone to safely exist in society.

sometimes i think people post harmful things because they’re confused/scared/ignorant. in fact, i’d venture to guess that’s what happens a majority of the time. in these cases, their mind isn’t set in stone, making it a prime time for someone to step in and engage in a hopefully-fruitful conversation with said person. even if they dont change their mind, they just had +1 neutral/pleasant conversation with someone they would normally write off (thanks to mainstream media) as unreasonable/aggressive/whatever.

That probably represents some cases, but it is not the responsibility of impacted communities to deprogram hateful people. People change because of real relationships, built over real shared values, not over shitposting on the internet.

stopping these engagements from happening is worth the risk that a truly bad apple exists in the public eye (before being banned or whatever), because these seemingly inconsequential interactions can lead to a better social ecosystem that is more self-sustaining. one that balances itself out from within, by individuals’ efforts, not the efforts of admins.

“Can lead to a better social ecosystem” is doing a LOT of heavy lifting here. I think for the majority of people, the infinitesimal chance of maybe having a positive change is far outweighed by the negative consequenses of allowing unfettered harassment and abuse.

admins should focus on keeping obviously illegal activity at a minimum, not on deciding what is morally good or bad. individuals have the block/mute button for that?

Admins should focus on whatever they want, they are the ones managing the space. The inconvenience to you is having to visit another website, the inconvenience to users targeted by this harassement is a lot more than that.

it’s impossible to erect walls, virtual or physical, that keep only bad actors at bay. inevitably, vulnerable individuals/people will find themselves trapped on the wrong side of enemy lines.

People make choices. If you find yourself on the wrong side, time to switch sides. If you don’t, then maybe you don’t actually believe you’re on the wrong side.

in real life, that’s much scarier than online. defederating from one’s neighborhood isn’t a thing. online networks can indirectly (maybe??) help make those neighborhoods better by leading by example and providing evidence that everyone can get along and benefits from doing so. people in certain parts of the world will never physically interact with X or Y kind of people. the internet is people’s only exposure to certain cultures and ideas. might as well help make that exposure good instead of hoping whatever exposure they get elsewhere is positive. i think the internet can be an incredibly powerful force for changing minds for the better (which can create a safer IRL space for all, indirectly), but that doesnt happen if zero discussion ever happens, even if that means including some differing/bad voices at times.

A lot of people rely on their internet communities to be safe for exactly that reason. Can’t put up a pride flag on your apartment because last time you got a brick through your window? At least you can be safe to be yourself in the online communities you chose. Nobody is stopping folks from interacting with online communities, you just have to agree to follow the community rules.

we aren’t fully aware of the powerful tool in our hands, especially when outside the grasp of centralized capitalist platforms. now’s the time to reimagine social media and not play by some megacorp’s growth-at-all-costs rules. hate fuels algorithms. hate keeps their social media platforms alive & monetized. we’ve been conditioned to believe hate must always beget hate… because it’s profitable.

Ironically defederation is the biggest boon we’ve been given. No longer subject to “engagement” based algorithms, communities are free to decide what they want to engage with. Defederation is not hate.

online, everyone is weirdly guilty until proven innocent. it’s easier to believe that’s true when people aren’t in front of you too. they’re just NPCs with funny names & avatars, not complex humans that have their share of good & bad days.

Spend any time on IRL social networks (e.g. LinkedIn, Facebook, Instagram, etc), and you’ll see that people don’t give a shit even when presented with real names and faces.

just because something is said, or discussed, doesn’t make it true or dangerous. the human mind is cool because it can can basically create VMs and toy around with ideas without risking damage to the rest of the mind. devil’s advocates aren’t devils when they take off their cosplay horns.

Devil’s advocacy is only useful when used to strengthen arguments, otherwise it’s just an excuse for people to hold a position without taking responsibility for it.

“free speech” to me isn’t being able to harass or incite violence. it means being free to say & think things without always meaning them. or being allowed to be wrong/uninformed. freedom of speech depends heavily on context, and i think that’s partially why encouraging free speech online is so hard (compared to with friends or in offline classrooms), but it’s worth attempting (i think). IRL, it’s far easier to see when someone is genuinely curious, joking, aggressive, confused, etc.

Everyone is free to say what they want, however, they are not free from the consequences. This is true of all interactions, IRL or online. People vomiting out every thought in their head instead of carefully considering is part of what leads to so much conflict.

the alternative is for any and all controversial discussions to only happen behind closed doors, online or offline. but that seems likely to improve nothing from where it stands today.

Controversial discussions can happen wherever people want to support them, and under the rules they set.

it’s easy to de-federate from instances with content deemed hateful to some (yes, i worded that carefully), but that means that certain individuals’ notions of those other people will never be challenged. this protects one’s fediverse but shifts the conflict IRL potentially. not everyone can just “turn off” the ignorant people around them.

The conflict is already there IRL. It is the responsibility of the individual to learn and grow, not for communities to proselytize.

do you know how hard it would be for a far right person to hate the queer community (for example) if they found themselves surrounded by non-combative, creative, talented, similar (in other ways lol) people? i think (i’m only guessing) that a similar thing happened back in the day with tattoos/piercings. seeing normal (& exceptional) people regularly that look a certain way can absolutely erode preconceived notions over time, like water drops carving the Grand Canyon. that is what changes minds. seeing other people, kinda like you, also kinda unlike you, living life and being cool.

Hateful people self isolate by choice, only interacting to attack those communities. Queer people are not welcome in their churches, bars, neighborhoods, social circles, etc.

i think wodespread defederation ensures all negative preconceived notions largely stay in tact. federating and handling issues on a case-by-case basis (or letting individuals handle their own disagreements, gasp!) just seems like a better strategy to me. but i could very well he wrong. i have zero relevant credentials to speak on any of this.

If you look at any of the truely “open” communities, they are essentially cesspools of hate and violence. Yeah people can clean dog shit off their own lawns, but much better if the shit wasn’t there in the first place.

i guess i just personally believe individual humans can & should look after themselves, their friends, and their communities without the need for overprotection by centralized powers — most of the time.

Disagree. You even disagree with yourself in your own definition. What is the responsibility of an individual who looks after themselves, their friends, and their communities? Maybe taking action to protect those friends and communities, instead of forcing them to protect themselves?

maybe i went off topic there a bit. sorry! this entire discussion fascinates me and frustrates me to no end. i truly think we could miss out on an opportunity to create a better Internet/network based on how this is all handled.

The internet is people, it’s not some mystical new social order. I want the fuckheads to stay away from me, just like IRL.

Bobo_Palermo,

Simply don't go to that magazine? Fuck, people....censorship is bad, but it sounds like kbin is committed to it. Is there a community I can join that has full free speech? This is a serious question.

knatsch,

If you want to have a tolerant community you need to filter those out who are intolerant to others.

gonzo0815,

4chan

szczur,
szczur avatar

They don't exist, because everytime someone mistakes hate speech for free speech it turns the community into a giant cesspool.

Zagorath,
@Zagorath@aussie.zone avatar

It’s the paradox of tolerance. If you tolerate intolerant views in a space, quickly only the intolerant will feel welcome in a space. The series of now-removed Tweets screenshotted in this article do a great job of illustrating the point.

sombrero,

Complete freedom is called anarchy.

MonsieurHedge,
MonsieurHedge avatar

The mostly "reduced" posts in this thread open up a good time to discuss the benefits of federation in regards to removing problem users. Can we federate banlists, such that if, for example, you're banned from kbin.social for creating a community for hate speech, it also bans you from likeminded instances automatically?

Would be nice to form "zine alliances" to share the burden a little bit. Anyone who posts "end wokeness" stuff doesn't need to exist on any platform.

blazera,
blazera avatar

how did you even find it? Browsing by newest?

nostalgicgamerz,

Unfortunately to have true “free speech” on a platform, is inevitable that hate speech and bigots will exist as well.

All we can do is block them and move on

LollerCorleone,
LollerCorleone avatar

Its nice to see all the bigots popping up in one place. Makes it easier to block them. And we really need to get some instance level mods.

reitoei,
reitoei avatar

deleted_by_author

    •
    szczur,
    szczur avatar

    Oh boy, an enlightened centrist!

    If you cannot differentiate between people actively stepping up to a literal anti-human propaganda from people posting it, perhaps you should fuck off, too.

    hydro033,

    Oh boy, here we go with the enlightened centrists label. Disagree with somethings on the left and right and now you're also a huge problem. Bravo

    szczur,
    szczur avatar

    You are, because the guy we are talking about literally chose the appeasement rhetoric. And that's pretty enlightement centrist-y.

    Both sides are equally bad bullshit.

    ondoyant,
    @ondoyant@beehaw.org avatar

    get fucked. politics shapes our lives, if you hate it so much don't use the fucking internet.

    Borgzilla, (edited )
    @Borgzilla@lemmy.ca avatar

    As a non-american, I find americans to be very intense when it comes to politics. I just hope that we don’t start importing their culture war bullshit into our country.

    Aesthesiaphilia,

    This you?

    Izzgo,

    Now I can confirm, the block button works :D

    realcaseyrollins,

    If you don't like it, don't read it.

    ArugulaZ,
    ArugulaZ avatar

    The frothing hysteria over "wokeness" (ie treating your fellow humans with respect) is just a smokescreen by the oil industry, which hopes it will take some pressure off it for, you know, slowly killing us all with global warming. You do know this, don't you?

    I went through a young Republican phase, too. Then I realized that the party had nothing to offer ordinary people but contempt and cynical manipulation. Like telling people that they can be good Christians by doing the exact opposite of what Christ did. Like pitting Americans against each other for their differences. Like convincing people that the former president, a monster by any objective standard, is this country's savior when it's clear that he's just shaking the nation for loose change.

    It's called "wokeness" because we finally opened our eyes, saw what was happening all around us, and decided to do something about it. You can either recognize the evil in this world, or become another oblivious victim of it.

    unsophisticated,

    This is a literal conspiracy theory.

    10A,

    And quite a creative one at that.

    bane_killgrind,

    It's not really. There is millions visibly spent on lobbying efforts against climate change, and invisibly stockholders invested in energy are board members of media companies. For example Jack Cockwell has over a billion dollars in Brookfield hedge fund, and that fund has been increasing it's holdings in energy for the last decade. There's some BCE board member that has millions of dollars in Wajax stocks (industrial equipment manufacturer), about half his net worth.
    If you talk about industries with influence on one another from the perspective of ownership, you'll find it's all very incestuous as the richest people will diversify.
    Weirdly, the people involved in Fox News only seem to own stock in FOX, but cash contributions to those people aren't shown in the market data I'm looking at. Maybe I'm not looking in the right places, but I'm not a finance person.

    esc27,

    Real progress and change takes work and money. Inflated social issues can be "solved" with policy. This whole mess is just policial theater that creates the illusion of governance at the expense of minorities.

    ArugulaZ,
    ArugulaZ avatar

    Every downvote is a sweet, sweet tear trickling down from the chubby cheek of an incel sociopath who was pre-emptively blocked. Delicious! Your agony sustains me!

    ernest,
    ernest avatar

    I just need a little more time. There will likely be a technical break announced tomorrow or the day after tomorrow. Along with the migration to new servers, we will be introducing new moderation tools that I am currently working on and testing (I had it planned for a bit later in my roadmap). Then, I will address your reports and handle them very seriously. I try my best to delete sensitive content, but with the current workload and ongoing relocation, it takes a lot of time. I am being extra cautious now. The regulations are quite general, and I would like to refine them together with you and do everything properly. For now, please make use of the option to block the magazine/author.

    cacheson, (edited )
    cacheson avatar

    The regulations are quite general, and I would like to refine them together with you and do everything properly.

    I have been wondering how instance-wide moderation will end up looking on kbin, once you've had a chance to get a team in place for that. While it is (I assume) a "generalist" instance, it's important to keep in mind that you can't please everyone. Trying to have too broad of an audience will just result in retaining those with a high tolerance for toxicity (usually highly toxic themselves), while everyone else leaves in favor of better-managed spaces.

    Communities in general, and particularly on the internet, need to understand what their purpose is, and be proactive about filtering out those that are incompatible with that purpose. This doesn't mean judging those people as wrong, or "bad people", it just means recognizing that not everyone is going to get along, and that some level of group cohesion needs to be maintained.

    atypicaloddity,

    Agreed, that's part of my problem with generalist instances. They're so broad that they serve multiple communities with differing expectations, and it forces admins to take sides.

    cacheson,
    cacheson avatar

    I think there is value in having both generalist and specialized instances, and the big landing spots for new users should probably strive to be more generalist. As you point out though, there are limits to how broad of an audience one can practically cater to.

    Noki,
    Noki avatar

    thank you!

    I appreciate all you do and your quick respond.

    Multipile Things I noticed as a creater of this thread:
    can I close comments ?
    can I hide comments ?
    can I pin a response?
    can I quickly see from what server peope are interacting?

    I am no coder but would love to support you with all the work that is done.

    At least some of the costs can be taken of your shoulders:

    https://www.buymeacoffee.com/kbin

    Edit: Can you close this thread for me ?

    !deleted100457,

    deleted_by_author

    •
    wahming,

    Oh go start your own malignant instance.

    garrettw87,
    garrettw87 avatar

    deleted_by_author

    •
    wahming, (edited )

    It's a bad attitude to tell an unapologetic transphobe to get lost?

    Edit: In case you didn't realise, that's the user this entire post is complaining about.

    garrettw87,
    garrettw87 avatar

    No, I didn’t realize that. Sorry.

    poo,
    poo avatar

    Kindly go spread your nazi bullshit somewhere else, thanks buck.

    ernest,
    ernest avatar

    All the things you mentioned are in the roadmap. However, we can either do it quickly and potentially encounter issues in a few weeks or months, or take a bit more time for a more thorough approach. I've decided to move away from playful prototyping. From now on, every change will be tested before it's approved for kbin.social - it's no longer just my code (https://lab2.kbin.pub/). I'd like to close this thread for you... but can we just agree not to respond in it anymore? ;p

    bane_killgrind,

    Thank you for being thorough

    Hobovision,
    Hobovision avatar

    I don't think closing threads is a great idea or in keeping with how this all works. I think it'd be nice to be able to mute a thread as an individual, but by its nature these discussions are open and shared with many instances. If we close it on kbin.social, other kbin instances, lemmy instances, and even places like mastodon and pixelfed could keep discussing, if I understand activity pub correctly.

    ernest,
    ernest avatar

    In such important tasks, I would like to engage in community-driven development. When I start planning these tasks, I will come to you with my whiteboard and sketch out the individual stages. Together, we will look for the advantages and disadvantages of such a solution, the weak and strong points. This is to jointly make a decision on whether the change makes sense on kbin.social but also in the perspective of the entire federation. It can be a great fun ;)

    Snapz,
    @Snapz@beehaw.org avatar

    Let's all agree that of its many issues, locking/deleting open threats to targeted minority groups and pro supremacist propaganda meant to hurt or influence vulnerable people was NOT a drawback of the Reddit experience.

    Yes, it's a difficult thing to enforce a subjective line of a basic standard of decency, but it's also what a society is and one of the main reasons we gather as people. The quality of a group is shown in how they accommodate the weakest and most vulnerable among them.

    If we aren't prioritizing a way to send this CHUD and people liked them to the hypothetical edge of town, to be sure they can't bombard the young person struggling with their gender identity with targeted hate at their weakest moment, then what are we doing here?

    Infiltrated_ad8271,
    Infiltrated_ad8271 avatar

    Could you clarify what you would do in cases like this? Censor based on misinterpretation of the clickbait headline, even if it does not contain hate content at all?

    TheDudeAbiding,
    TheDudeAbiding avatar

    That's the best bait you could come up with? Come on, you can do better.

    LoafyLemon,
    LoafyLemon avatar

    A friendly reminder; Please don't forget to take your time and step away from Kbin whenever you need a break. Your mental health is just as important, if not most important, for the project to succeed.

    albinanigans,
    albinanigans avatar

    You are correct.

    I'm bookmarking this page to return to later. Time to pull up some weeds!

    slicedcheesegremlin,
    slicedcheesegremlin avatar

    Everyone appreciates your effort here, ernest. Spez hasn't gotten 92 upvotes on a comment in years lmao despite Reddit having millions of users, it really shows how the difference.

    KTVX94, (edited )

    I joined kbin recently and I'm kind of concerned about the implications of this. I don't support those posts at all, but who gets to say what's worth banning and what not? Wouldn't that go against the decentralized nature of the site? Or is it the specific instance that magazine is on that has the authority to ban what's inside? How does all of this work?

    Edit: my bad, I got kbin and kbin.social mixed up. Noob mistake.

    lazy,

    @KTVX94

    While I kind of agree with you in being concerned about who gets to control what we see and don't see and the censorship aspect, there is also "the paradox of tolerance" to be considered and maybe in that light it is correct to not tolerate that subs intolerance.

    Regarding the Paradox of Tolerance:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

    MrMonkey,

    The Paradox of Tolerance is hot garbage:

    https://lemm.ee/comment/481170

    aleph,
    @aleph@lemm.ee avatar

    That link doesn't get anywhere close to showing why it is "hot garbage".

    Perhaps if you used your words to express a coherent argument, it would be more productive.

    Kierunkowy74,
    Kierunkowy74 avatar

    kbin.social administration controls only what is published on kbin.social, and what content from elsewhere kbin.social users can see. An user banned from kbin.social can make another account, on another site and start recreate there his banned community. kbin.social will be able to ban this remote user and remote community, but this restricts only what kbin.social users can see.

    Exactly the same for another /kbin or lemmy site - just replace the domain name accordingly.

    updawg,

    It actually is one of the strengths of the decentralized nature of the Fediverse. But there are still growing pains associated with it.

    harmonea,
    harmonea avatar

    Wouldn't that go against the decentralized nature of the site?

    No, it's exactly the opposite. The entire point of a decentralized federation is that while yes, the admin is in complete control of what content is allowed on his or her own instance, users who don't like what the admin is doing can just spin up their own new instances.

    Ernest can ban this type of content if he likes. Others can take the kbin software and make a new instance where it's welcome. Ernest can choose not to federate with that instance if they continue to push content that's against his rules, but Ernest doesn't have the power to dictate the direction for hundreds of millions of users' experience like a certain centralized site's mad CEO or admin board does.

    What would be against the nature of ActivityPub is if Ernest built something into the software to prevent it being used for types of content he doesn't like, even on other instances.

    WhiskyTangoFoxtrot,

    The Fediverse is decentralized. The individual instances are not. Decentralization means that there's no one person or organization with power over the entire network, but people absolutely can and should moderate their own instances. If you don't like the moderation policies of once instance you can move to another.

    livus,
    livus avatar

    Remember, kbin.social is just one instance of kbin. Ernest banning something on kbin.social does not mean banning it from the fediverse.

    It could pop up on another fediverse site or even another kbin site.

    HidingCat,

    Wow, more new servers! Looks like the growth has been really explosive. It wasn't that long ago you migrated Kbin to Fastly right?

    spicy_biscuits,
    spicy_biscuits avatar

    Thank you Ernest, we appreciate you ☺️

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • kbinMeta
  • everett
  • Youngstown
  • InstantRegret
  • ethstaker
  • slotface
  • PowerRangers
  • Durango
  • vwfavf
  • kavyap
  • tsrsr
  • ngwrru68w68
  • DreamBathrooms
  • mdbf
  • magazineikmin
  • anitta
  • rosin
  • tacticalgear
  • thenastyranch
  • osvaldo12
  • GTA5RPClips
  • khanakhh
  • cisconetworking
  • modclub
  • cubers
  • tester
  • normalnudes
  • Leos
  • provamag3
  • All magazines
    •