Comment on please defederate from exploding-heads.com and rammy.site
funchords@lemmy.sdf.org 1 year ago
If I am reading the situation wrong, I apologize.
The reason that I am not a member at beehaw was because they were overly wrapped up in concerns such as this one. I’m here for enjoyable chats with people, not to take sides in the latest macro-politics or causes or whatever lately is stirring the pot or making the winds blow. These things are fine and some people are interested in them, but I’m turned off by the idea of an instance that is particularly identified one way or another when I am not concerned with any of that.
What I’m looking for are kind souls that share an interest in technology and an instance that was widely federated so that a wide variety of my interest groups (music, weightloss, networking, ancient Stoicism) are available. That’s why I joined here. SDF has been around a long time and many who have enjoyed its offerings have held many different opinions and yet shared this resource peacefully.
I’m particularly turned off by people that want a silo with only the right causes, only the right thinking, only the right speech.
That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have management and protection of against those that are unkindly trolling or actively trying to do technical damage. Ban those actually doing evil. But if people of good cheer share different views kindky as neighbors and friends, I have no problem with that and don’t want to see that roped off.
Remember the two rules of FidoNet? “Don’t be excessively annoying. Don’t be easily annoyed.” That’s all I’m saying.
You are aware that defederating from an instance won’t stop individual users from that instance joining yours?
To be honest your view on things seems far too innocent, like paradox of tolerance manifest. What you desire is something that’s fought for and fiercely defended. The rest of the internet should serve evidence for why we can’t just have nice things.
Also did you look at the instances in question yourself?
What do you think the paradox of tolerance is? The reason why I ask is because it’s commonly misunderstood, because the quote explaining it is taken out of context.
If you believe I used the term incorrectly please say so. As it stands you’re coming off as someone who knows a thing, and wants everyone else to know they know.
I don’t know if you used the term incorrectly or not, because I can’t read your mind. It could either mean “You are naive like the paradox of tolerance warns us about” or “You are naive like the paradox of tolerance is”.
The paradox is explicated by Karl Popper as
Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise.
When quoting this, people always use the first two sentences, but leave out the third.
Also did you look at the instances in question yourself?
No. I’m operating under the principle that anything that I have to experience by going elsewhere practically proves that it isn’t causing a problem here.
You are aware that defederating from an instance won’t stop individual users from that instance joining yours?
If defederation causes objectionable people that would otherwise leave the remaining network alone to – because they were defederated – to come here and everywhere and not leave other instances alone, then the best move from the network’s perspective is to remain federated. Right?
ancient Stoicism
Is there modern stoicism? And if so, how is it different?
There is the English dictionary definition of stoic and stoicism with a small s character. There is also an ancient philosophy of Stoicism both ongoing and with a recent revival currently ongoing.
funchords, ha, we don’t know each other but we’ve bumped into each other before on reddit long ago and I remember your name and that you were in a barbershop quartet. looks like you picked a good instance as home, be well man :)
Hello again! Yes, that’s me. I’m still in a quartet! ♫ Thanks for saying hello!
Shikadi@lemmy.sdf.org 1 year ago
You’re reading the situation wrong. Go to those instances and read what’s there, it’s not about free speech, it’s active disinformation campaigns and propaganda. I would feel the same if it was extreme leftist propaganda. It’s not about creating an echo chamber. I respect the right to free speech, but that isn’t the same as allowing people a platform to systematically organize hate using falsified information. This is a situation where silence is complicity. Their instance continues to exist without us, their free speech continues, but by remaining federated we are giving them a platform.
funchords@lemmy.sdf.org 1 year ago
As usual, I have typed 500 words when 50 will do, and for that I apologize.
No, I do not care to and why would you do that? You already have determined it’s not right for you. Any alleged content problem that you have to see by going there would, if true, be a problem there. Does that make it a problem here? If I have to take extraordinary steps here to see it here, isn’t that on me? Isn’t the apparatus doing what it is supposed to be doing if I seek out a thing and find it?
The ultimate measure of freedom is the freedom to abstain. (Nobody is forcibly opting us in to reading their content.)
I’m just a regular user of SDF so these things aren’t up to me, but I would think that it would take more than “because it exists.” Defederation and Federation shouldn’t be used to signal alignment and nonalignment of expression, but for reasons of managing the network itself. A telephone company provides service to everyone and doesn’t care what you do with your phone. But, if someone is using it in a way that disrupts the network itself or others’ ability to use the network, the telephone company should act to protect the overall integrity of the network. Even then it wouldn’t silence the speech because of the speech, but because of the network.
Look, it’s one thing to be put off by someone going out of their way to affront you. It’s another to feel affronted after going out of your way to find if there is something objectionable anywhere. By that logic, since you have found something then defederation alone should not be enough, as “we are giving them a platform” still, because other people might visit there directly instead of through federation. Therefore, due to that situation, they should not have an DNS entry so you work on their Registrar to “deplatform” them. Then, because someone can connect using an IP address, their ISP should disconnect their service or else they’re providing their ISP as a platform. But as they can get another ISP in this day of mobile connectivity, you could chase down their power company, yes, because their power company is a platform – as is their landlord – as is their employer. And so on.
I remain unconvinced.
Artemis@lemmy.sdf.org 1 year ago
You could write 5000 words and I doubt they would change their views. Still I certainly enjoyed reading your words. Best regards.
Shikadi@lemmy.sdf.org 1 year ago
Let’s not be like Reddit and comment essays without reading the article. That’s why. You don’t even know what you’re arguing for if you don’t look at it.
It’s been all over my all feed personally, maybe you just don’t pay attention to where content is coming from?
See above
See above
No, I believe the internet is the utility. Unless actual crimes are being committed, they can have their websites. The key difference here is lemmy.sdf.org is relaying the posts from its own server, and therefore participating in spreading harmful disinformation. It’s not like a telephone company that lets anyone call, it’s like a newspaper that published anyone’s articles, or a bulletin board at the library that doesn’t moderate what’s there.
funchords@lemmy.sdf.org 1 year ago
If you are going to quote me, quote me. Do not edit my quotes.
Your article is the article. Your story is you read something somewhere about these sites, not from the sites. You passed it along, later checking and finding that some of the first facts were wrong (which is fine, that happens), but that you still think there were problems here. Perhaps, even bigger problems here.
I don’t need to visit any other sites to hold the principal that federation or defederation is about network management, not the views or viewpoints of the content. Not whether the content is right or wrong or factual or not, but whether it impacts the federation itself.
If I was in charge of network or systems management here, my main concern with all of this would be that rammy.site is reportedly without any moderation/administration. But I’m just a user here, and it seems that you are too. You’ve said your bit, I’ve said mine, and we both been cordial about it.
You should keep talking about this if you remain interested in it, but I’m moving on. I just wanted to voice my view that the reason I joined this instance was because it was widely federated and not involved in what was going on at beehaw.
SJ0@lemmy.fbxl.net 1 year ago
Shikadi@lemmy.sdf.org 1 year ago
Can you even read?
ThorrJo@lemmy.sdf.org 1 year ago
Maybe try making a better argument.
ThorrJo@lemmy.sdf.org 1 year ago
That’s for me to decide, not for you to decide on my behalf.
Shikadi@lemmy.sdf.org 1 year ago
Then if SDF defederates from them, leave
ThorrJo@lemmy.sdf.org 1 year ago
no u