I saw talk of them being federated with instances like “exploding heads” (literal neo-nazis) and “posting lolis rocks”, along with having interactions from users there. Is that true? idk how to check for that, I can only just barely stumble around the normal forum interface.

If so, why? They’ve been going hard on purging communists user-by-user and comment-by-comment, which seems like a little bit of a secondary concern to nazis and pedos, especially something as simple as just blocking the instances at the very least. What’s going on over there?

What I mentioned, if it is correct, might not be exhaustive, I’m just repeating what I heard about.

Edit: Correction, exploding heads are closer to being latter-day blue checks, complete garbage but not as pressingly bad as the other site.

  • JuxtaposedJaguar@lemmy.mlEnglish
    22·
    2 years ago

    Isn’t there a way for individual users to completely hide an instance from their feed? Because I would just do that if it bothers you.

    I’m not saying that some posts/instances aren’t unethical, objectively incorrect, and/or dangerous, but widespread censorship is a slippery slope. If you want what you’re able to see to be heavily controlled, there are probably other instances with that purpose. An instance that describes itself as general-purpose and for everyone probably isn’t the place for that, though.

    • king_dead@beehaw.orgEnglish
      3·
      2 years ago

      Gonna just hammer this home: this slippery slope has literally never been true. Reddit getting rid of neo nazis, the fatpeoplehate lynch mob, and the pedophile subreddits only ever made the site better. This fear of censorship has ruined platforms far more than any so called censorship has. I would rather go back to Something Awful and their capricious mods than deal with another laissez faire administration

    • CoinOperatedBoi@lemmy.mlEnglish
      3·
      2 years ago

      widespread censorship is a slippery slope

      I wouldn’t call blocking gore, nazis, and pedos “widespread”. For anyone who hasn’t heard the nazi bar story (source @IamRageSparkle on Twitter):

      I was at a shitty crustpunk bar once getting an after-work beer. One of those shitholes where the bartenders clearly hate you. So the bartender and I were ignoring one another when someone sits next to me and he immediately says, “no. get out.”

      And the dude next to me says, “hey i’m not doing anything, i’m a paying customer.” and the bartender reaches under the counter for a bat or something and says, “out. now.” and the dude leaves, kind of yelling. And he was dressed in a punk uniform, I noticed

      Anyway, I asked what that was about and the bartender was like, “you didn’t see his vest but it was all nazi shit. Iron crosses and stuff. You get to recognize them.”

      And i was like, ohok and he continues.

      "you have to nip it in the bud immediately. These guys come in and it’s always a nice, polite one. And you serve them because you don’t want to cause a scene. And then they become a regular and after awhile they bring a friend. And that dude is cool too.

      And then THEY bring friends and the friends bring friends and they stop being cool and then you realize, oh shit, this is a Nazi bar now. And it’s too late because they’re entrenched and if you try to kick them out, they cause a PROBLEM. So you have to shut them down.

      And i was like, ‘oh damn.’ and he said “yeah, you have to ignore their reasonable arguments because their end goal is to be terrible, awful people.”

      And then he went back to ignoring me. But I haven’t forgotten that at all.

      • JuxtaposedJaguar@lemmy.mlEnglish
        03·
        2 years ago

        I think that’s a somewhat reasonable argument when such people are actually congregating in your space, and their presence necessarily impacts everyone else in that space.

        In your example, by telling those people to leave you would necessarily be taking away what they believe to be their space and hindering the ability for group members to talk with each other. In the context of federated communities, it doesn’t matter when you block an instance (if and when such actions become necessary) because they’ll still have both of those things.

        In your example, all interactions would constantly be influenced by the presence of that group and non-group-members would understandably associate that group with that space. In the context of a federated community, anyone can easily and instantly remove all influence on them by that group. Non-group-members wouldn’t make such associations because that group’s influence on non-group-members would by default be minimal.

    • fubo@lemmy.worldEnglish
      2·
      2 years ago

      Blocking and unblocking should be normal, expected, easily discoverable, and openly discussed. There are a lot of people on the Internet; a nonzero number of them are frothing assholes; and frothing assholes are quite capable of running servers.

      The whole system we’re on here is still new and in rapid flux. Expect change. This isn’t Reddit with admins saying for years that hosting /r/jailbait is essential to free speech. It takes time to develop agreeable responses to kinds of trouble this system hasn’t yet seen.

      • CoinOperatedBoi@lemmy.mlEnglish
        1·
        2 years ago

        There are a lot of people on the Internet; a nonzero number of them are frothing assholes; and frothing assholes are quite capable of running servers.

        There are people goddamn sure that if you don’t accept their horse porn, that you must hate free speech.

          • GarbageShootAlt2@lemmy.mlOPEnglish
            1·
            2 years ago

            I liked them, but I think it requires more context than can be assumed. The first picture is titled “frothing fash” and the second one is an illustration of a frozen peach (“freeze peach” -> “free speech”).

      • JuxtaposedJaguar@lemmy.mlEnglish
        11·
        2 years ago

        The problem is not that some (or many) communities may block access to some (or many) other communities, but rather that such blocking is not immediately obvious and may give an appearance that those blocked communities don’t exist (kind of like lying by omission). This is especially true if the description of your community implies a lack of enforced blocking. If someone manages a community where it’s very clear that outside access is moderately to extremely controlled, I completely support that.

        • fubo@lemmy.worldEnglish
          2·
          2 years ago

          The point of blocking is to cause things to be invisible to the default view.

          If the blocked material is put in users’ face so they know it’s blocked, that misses the point of blocking it.

          Mod logs and published block lists are a great way of allowing users who are concerned about overblocking to investigate … without failing at the whole endeavor by sending every user a copy of all the horse porn & Nazi spam that got blocked.

          When I ran spam filtering for an institutional email server about 20 years ago, I made the “mod logs” (or rather, SMTP envelope data of blocked messages) available to users; but they had to go to a web page to see what messages had been blocked; and the content was not visible (since the mail server had never accepted it). I wrote that code so that my users could tell me if the spam blocking I’d configured was mistakenly blocking mail they wanted to receive.

          (The users were scientists & engineers. They could read email headers. If they wanted to.)

          But the point of blocking the horse porn spam and Nazi froth is lost if the users have to see it anyway so they know it’s blocked.

          Horse porn is not a made-up example, by the way. There was an email spammer named Jeremy Jaynes, who was in the habit of sending spam promoting bestiality porn. When he was arrested, suddenly the users on the email server I was running stopped complaining to me about horse porn.

        • GarbageShootAlt2@lemmy.mlOPEnglish
          1·
          2 years ago

          Blacklists are visible (see the links I was offered), but there would be nothing wrong with erasing the existence of some pedo shithole for all applications other than preserving evidence against them.

    • GarbageShootAlt2@lemmy.mlOPEnglish
      31·
      2 years ago

      Censoring literal, open Nazis and pedos is perfectly fine by me, thank you very much. I don’t think there’s any “slippery slope” involved other than the risks of allowing such people free rein in open spaces.

      • UnpopularBrainRot@lemmy.worldEnglish
        0·
        2 years ago

        Keyword literal.

        But nowadays people like to call Nazis other people that don’t agree with me and pedos weebs that like hs anime characters

        So I agree with you if anything illegal is going on.

        Are the Nazis advocating for violence and genocide and pedos distributing CP? sure block them and report them to the authorities.

        But I don’t care for fictional characters that doesn’t even resemble real life humans.

        Hot take I know.

        • GarbageShootAlt2@lemmy.mlOPEnglish
          1·
          2 years ago

          There are some absurd people on this board with bad political analysis, but you can see that I edited the OP. Hopefully I didn’t offend your identitarian tendencies or whatever that toe I stepped on was.

          The name of the second instance, let me remind you, is “posting.lolicon.rocks”. It seems to be run by an aggressively racist (loves to use the hard-r gamer word) pedo. Anyone who cheers what they even call lolicon is normally going to be some sort of 4chan-style sicko who probably pitched a fit at the Card Captor Sakura reboot having fewer upskirts.

        • ThisIsMyNewAccount@kbin.social
          1·
          2 years ago

          Nazism, by its very nature, advocates for violence and bigotry. There are a lot of abhorrent viewpoints that are despicable before they become illegal.

          Fuck them and fuck their claims and wanting free speech. That’s not even something they actually believe in.

    • CannotSleep420@lemmygrad.mlEnglish
      1·
      2 years ago

      Isn’t there a way for individual users to completely hide an instance from their feed? Because I would just do that if it bothers you.

      Not currently. Users can block individual communities on an instance, but only instance admins can block other instances. It would be a good feature to add though.