We should do our absolute best to not become a siloed instance. I predict we will start seeing certain instances be almost inaccessible which will lead to their users migrating to more open instances. It’s already becoming clear to me that certain instances will lose users over time if they continue actively segregating their instance from others.
Individual bad actors on other instances is not a good enough reason to defederate. If a troll is bothing someone they can be blocked/banned on sh.itjust.works. I don’t expect instance creators to ban all trolls, it’s not possible.
Defederation should be reserved for severe cases when another instance shows no interest in moderating. The two instances defederated right now are justified: one condones the denial historical events and actively censors opposition, and the other was condoning heinous illegal activies regarding underage individuals. These are two clear examples of where defederation makes sense.
Defederation should only be used as a last resort.
My previous post continues this sentiment from a couple days ago here: https://sh.itjust.works/post/281126
I see the Fediverse as a network that can subsume all existing social media networks. In order for that to work we have to fight to make sure the network is as cohesive as possible. This includes places that contain content or opinions that we won’t agree with.
I think de-federation should be very limited and mostly a low level administrative function.
Fighting spam is a good example or what I mean. Since anybody can make an instance and have it spew spam users/comments into the greater community. The ability to unlink from these instances is a vital tool for making the network run smoothly.
Illegal things like CSAM or sites that engage in the orchestration of violence, doxing or online harassment are, to me, a red line for content that cannot exist on the network. Too many locations, where instances are hosted, have laws against these things and allowing federation of instances with this type of content can leave the instance owners open to legal issues. Because of that, they cannot be federated with.
The sticky part, and where people argue the most, is when it comes to viewpoints that they consider extreme. To take a US viewpoint (as I’m a US user) the current culture war issues in the US create a flashpoint where essentially every side is convinced that they’re correct and that the other side is literally evil and that should justify not federating with them.
I don’t think it takes much investigative work to see that I’m more on the left end of the spectrum. On top of that, I live in a rural area and so I’m constantly having to interact with people on the right who have opinions that I find… extreme. The thing that I’ve found is that if you can engage with them as a person, have some empathy and understand their viewpoints it usually isn’t hard to dissuade them of their more extremist notions. Most people are simply a product of the media that they consume, they’re not evil they’re just repeating things they heard and things that made them feel outraged or afraid.
Being able to provide that opposing viewpoint and to engage with people who seem otherwise unreachable is incredibly important to moderating the worst viewpoints. The idea of de-federating instances is the antithesis of this idea. All that is doing is walling them into a bubble where they only ever hear opinions that agree with them and nothing builds extremism like never being told that you’re wrong and never having to defend your ideas. I think it is better for the health of all of society to keep the lines of communication open to instances that maintain the bare minimum of standards for their content.
I know that not everyone agrees with this idea and I certainly understand the draw and comfort of being able to just put them out of your mind but I also think that the right things to do isn’t always the most comfortable thing to do.
I understand where you’re coming from, I really do.
But deplatform Nazis and fascists. Always and everywhere. They don’t operate on the same good faith that you give them, they take every opportunity to spread hate under the cover of “free speech”, and if they know they can keep getting away with it, they will.
There can be spaces to deradicalize of course, but that’s not the same as giving someone free reign to spout hate.
See also: the paradox of tolerance
The Paradox of Tolerance actually favours Bit’s argument.
NOT MY OPINION:
Deplatform LGBTQ always and everywhere. They don’t operate on the same good faith that you give them, they take every opportunity to spread hate under the cover of “free speech”, and if they know they can keep getting away with it, they will.
There can be spaces to rehabilitate them of course, but that’s not the same as giving someone free reign to spout hate against traditional family values.
END
The above is something that would be totally uncontroversial in my country if anyone said it on national TV. In fact, they might be seen as being quite soft on LGBT people since they weren’t calling for total eradication of LGBT folk. Interesting you mention paradox of tolerance, the same is used to justify why people should outright hate LGBT folk and never tolerate them (in my country at least).
Then you don’t understand the paradox of tolerance. Sure, you can make up attributes to a group to justify discriminating against them but in that case, any rules or reason is already a waste of time since you’ve already decided discrimination is what is right, the explanation for why is just an afterthought.
However, being LGBT is not an opinion, it’s not an ideology, there’s no cohesive set of values that they share. Most hopefully agree with equal rights regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity but there are LGBT grifters on the right in the US as well. That’s why you can’t compare it to the alt-right and/or nazism that are only political viewpoints and very distinctly include discrimination. That last part is very important as it’s a big difference-maker when comparing them to other political ideologies that aren’t based on discrimination.
Yeah, people should never use a paradox to argue their point. I guarantee you that most people who use it haven’t actually read it.
So you want to create echo-chambers and live in your filter bubble? Fine but don’t force that onto others.
This is what I always try to preach. The internet if today has bred some crazy right wingers. And it’s because of the bad algorithms in the likes of Facebook that end up causing echo chambers that further radicalise the impressionable. We should strive to fight for their right to not be defederated so they don’t end up in an echo chamber
We may never see them again, but people in their real life will, and being in an echo chamber will make them worse. We need them to be able to see the other side and they need to be challenged. Challenged in a meaningful manner though and not just getting angry at them and calling them names. Discussions need to happen, of all kinds. Even if implicitly via different posts popping up and not just with direct comments and messages if you know what I mean.
I’ve had experiences interacting with homophobes in my own life (I’m gay), and by and large they don’t change their position and only make me feel horrible after the interaction. Those who are on the fence I could see the avenue for nuance, but there shouldn’t be spaces to encourage fence sitters to be more homophobic
If those fence sitters have ended up registered on the instance to become defederated then defederation is doing just that. Encouraging them to become more homophobic.