I have been looking through a long thread on another instance where a few users have been trying to convince that instance to defederate from Exploding Heads - because they do not want to see the content posted on Exploding Heads.
I have thought long and hard about how to please these people. They do have the option to individually block Exploding Heads communities or users, but they either do not know how to or simply do not want to.
In the end I realized if I ban those specific users requesting defederation from Exploding Heads - they will not see any content from Exploding Heads and therefore will not be offended by it. (Truth be told I am not sure if some of these users have really visited our site or interacted with our users).
So today I have banned those users with the explanation that they have said they do not want to see Exploding Heads content. If any of those users wish to be unbanned in the future, all they have to do is say so and I will happily unban them.
These users are not being banned in order to censor them, but to help them achieve what they have been requesting - to not see Exploding Heads content.
I hope you all find this a fair and reasonable action - if not let me know.
No, you can’t. You’re posting on sh.itjust.works’s copy of beehaw’s thread. Being defederated with them, not a single beehaw user will see your comment. Only users from your specific instance will.
Yes and that’s exactly the point of defederating from an instance? They can do whatever they please on their side, we don’t need to see it.
I want to see varied opinions. I do NOT want another filter bubble.
Then you’re free to join EH and enjoy the freedom to look at racist, homophobic and conspiracy content, it doesn’t mean that should be imposed on communities that value tolerance.
You are way too intolerant to be pushing “tolerance”.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
Those who are tolerant can’t afford to tolerate intolerance because it leads to intolerance. Only those who argue in good faith and with rational arguments should be allowed to share their intolerant views because it means they’re open to actual discussion. This is not the case with the alt-right or tankies, therefore tolerating them leads to intolerance.
Who decides whether a particular user is arguing in good or bad faith, exactly? I’ve seen a few comments on “tolerant” communities get deleted that I personally thought were made in good faith but brought up inconvenient points for the majority opinion. Before you ask, there is exactly zero chance I will find them for a demo.
In this case we’re talking about a whole community where we’ve got proof that people post intolerant content with false premises. There’s a whole thread with pictures of it. People who disagree with that shouldn’t subscribe to an instance that allows it.
It’s not an issue that can be tackled on a user by user basis… Unless you want to hire and pay for a bunch of full time mods to watch every posts on our instance? You know… What private social medias need to resort to to try and keep extremism and false information under control?
You know what they say, if you hang out with a bunch of racists then you are too.
What I am seeing is any opposition no matter how reasonable instantly gets equated to fascist/nazi/whatever and exiled. This results in the people that subscribe to these views being siloed in an echochamber themselves. I want to see good faith discussions that aren’t cut short by mods or admins because they are too intolerant of what they consider to be “intolerance”.