Dear Admins of the Lemmy.world instance I am asking that you please consider defederating from the rammy.site instance as soon as possible as the admin is no where to be found and it has been taken over by right wing posters posting hateful messages. There are also other people posting large amounts of spam and creating empty communities. What was once a small hobby run general purpose instance has been turned over and made into a festering right wing hate filled breeding ground by the people from exploding-heads. The only recoarse left it seems is to defederate to prevent them from spreading hate to other instances.

PS. I already sent this message to multiple admins here, sorry about that I just felt it was urgent to make sure the message was sent before these people cause more damage.

  • fkn
    link
    17
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    It literally isn’t censorship.

    You can call it deplatforming if you need to call it something.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      -191 year ago

      Dictionary says censorship is:

      the suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security.

      Is deplatforming not suppression? Are we not talking about something that we find unacceptable?

      It’s censorship, and that’s ok, because it’s the only real tool we have to fight the spread of bigoted lies, because the truth doesn’t work on the stupid and disingenuous.

      • fkn
        link
        121 year ago

        Except it’s literally not the suppression or prohibition of anything.

        It’s not censorship if you don’t let people into your house. It’s not censorship if you don’t let people paint on your walls.

        This isn’t the government. This isn’t the prevention or suppression or public speech. They can (and do) post that shit. You are free to go read it.

        Almost no media platform is required to host or publish any content they don’t want to. What do you not understand about this?

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          -161 year ago

          It’s not censorship if you don’t let people into your house. It’s not censorship if you don’t let people paint on your walls.

          I gave a dictionary definition of censorship and you’re trying to make analogies to trespassing and vandalism. Just use the definition.

          This isn’t the government.

          Censorship isn’t exclusive to governments. Private entities and public corporations can perform acts of internal censorship or even self censor in external communications.

          This isn’t the prevention or suppression or public speech. They can (and do) post that shit. You are free to go read it.

          There are countries that ban pornography, however someone outside the country is still free to see said pornography. Does the suppression of pornography in that country cease to be censorship simply because some people are still free to see it?

          Almost no media platform is required to host or publish any content they don’t want to. What do you not understand about this?

          Yep, and that’s why there are many corporations that self censor according to their own sensibilities. And that what this whole thread is about, the question of whether to censor rammy.site by suppressing their content via defederation.

          There’s nothing confusing about this unless you have mixed feelings about the word censorship itself but still support the suppression of speech you don’t like(and to reiterate, i find the content on rammy.site bigoted and high objectionable, and want it censored)

          • fkn
            link
            91 year ago

            You can continue to incorrectly call this censorship if you want, but you are going to continue to be wrong.

            It’s obvious that you have difficulty with disambiguating the appropriate levels of abstraction for use with the words based on your examples. At this point, it’s either intentional rhetoric designed to try and confuse others or pride and ignorance. I am starting to lean towards bad actor.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              -61 year ago

              I’m having difficulty yes.

              The fediverse is akin to a network, instances join this network and relay content to and from each other.

              The internet is a network, networks upon networks, and nodes in the network relay content to and from each other.

              If a country decides to block objectionable content on the internet, the news article covering this will use the term censorship. Whether it’s porn, anti-religious content, or inconvenient history, they will call cutting off that part of the internet, whether via filtering or total disconnection, censorship. Even though this falls in your example of “you don’t let people into your house”, because those countries aren’t letting certain packets into their borders, it is still commonly referred to as censorship.

              So, if an instance on the fediverse decides to opt out of relaying objectionable content, thus suppressing that content, how does it not meet the criteria for censorship if defederation is analogous to countries performing censorship via blocking internet content?

              • fkn
                link
                3
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Except an instance isn’t a country. It isn’t a government. This instance isn’t operated by or for a government. Most instances are owned and operated by a single individual or a small group of people.

                If you owned a coffee shop, and you banned someone for standing in a booth screaming racial slurs, that’s not censorship. It is irrelevant how that person got to the coffee shop. It isn’t even censorship for Starbucks to ban someone from all of their stores.

                To make the analogy more complete. Suppose you had two entrances to your shop. Those entrances adjourn to neighboring restaurants/shops. Suppose one of your neighbors screams racial slurs in their own shop. You can’t stop them except by asking nicely. Suppose they don’t stop. They attract a bunch of people like themselves who scream racial slurs all day. Now, you could ban the people who come in to your shop screaming slurs through that entrance one by one sure… Or you could shut that entrance and lock it. Shutting the door isn’t censorship.

                You haven’t made it illegal for them to scram racial slurs. You haven’t imposed on their rights to freely operate their business as they wish. But you not keeping that entrance open isn’t censorship.

                It would be censorship if the government made it illegal to scream racial slurs. It would be censorship if you locked them out of and prevented them from using something they owned themselves… (It’s not censorship for a landlord to kick a tenant out of a building they own for spray painting hate speech on the building for example).

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  11 year ago

                  Have we not established that censorship isn’t something solely done at the government level? I was using government censorship as an example, but censorship can be performed by companies, groups of people, and individuals.

                  Also, why are you not addressing the dictionary definition of censorship? Why are you not addressing my example? Why are you ignoring my comparison of a network to a network, and instead trying to compare a network to a shop, apartment, or restaurant?

                  It’s really easy to pretend this isn’t censorship is you ignore the literal dictionary definition of the word and direct analogies(a federation list is more akin to a peering list than it is to a restaurant…), and instead supply a convoluted abstract example of your own.

                  I believe I’m satisfied that the issue at hand is cognitive dissonance on your part, wherein you hold censorship as morally objectionable, but are conflicted because in this instance censorship is a tool you wish(rightly) to be wielded.

                  • fkn
                    link
                    11 year ago

                    Alright, corporate censorship requires that there be the threat of monetary loss or loss of access that will result in loss of money. So this can’t be corporate censorship.

                    It’s not self censorship because it’s not a person censoring their own work.

                    That leaves only the possibility for it to be censorship by an organizing body, which requires that the organizing body be the principle body through which all media is distributed or authorized for distribution. Any single instance does not meet this definition. It is arguably possible that if the process by which activitypub was centralized under a single authority body, and that body decided to remove any instance spreading a specific message that could be a form of censorship.

                    You claim that I am ignoring your examples. It should be immediately obvious that my counter example is your argument reworded to be non technical. I’m sorry that you don’t understand this or what it means.

                    You claim that I am ignoring the dictionary definition. I am not. Once again, you claiming something to be true doesn’t make it true. Defederation is not the suppression of anything.

                    I’m sorry that you don’t understand this. I don’t know how else to tell you.

                    I haven’t once insulted you in this thread before this but Go fuck yourself.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            -61 year ago

            Maan, you’re getting wrongly downvoted to hell, and I just wanted to stop, and give you some admiration, and thanks for being able to apply critical thought, and impartiality.

            There’s so much cognitive dissonance in these threads.