@ernest how do I report a Magazin on kbin.social ? There is a usere called “ps” who is posting to his own “antiwoke” Magazin on kbin.social. Please remove this and dont give them a chance to etablish them self on kbin.social. When I report his stuff it will go to him because he is the moderator of the magazin? Seems like a problem. Screenshot of the “antiwoke” Magazin /sub on kbin.social. 4 Headlines are visible, 2 exampels: “Time to reject the extrem trans lobby harming our society” “How to end wokeness” #Moderation #kbin #kbin.social 📎
edit: dont feed the troll, im shure ernest will delet them all when he sees this. report and move on.
Edit 2 : Ernest responded:
“I just need a little more time. There will likely be a technical break announced tomorrow or the day after tomorrow. Along with the migration to new servers, we will be introducing new moderation tools that I am currently working on and testing (I had it planned for a bit later in my roadmap). Then, I will address your reports and handle them very seriously. I try my best to delete sensitive content, but with the current workload and ongoing relocation, it takes a lot of time. I am being extra cautious now. The regulations are quite general, and I would like to refine them together with you and do everything properly. For now, please make use of the option to block the magazine/author.”
❤
I just need a little more time. There will likely be a technical break announced tomorrow or the day after tomorrow. Along with the migration to new servers, we will be introducing new moderation tools that I am currently working on and testing (I had it planned for a bit later in my roadmap). Then, I will address your reports and handle them very seriously. I try my best to delete sensitive content, but with the current workload and ongoing relocation, it takes a lot of time. I am being extra cautious now. The regulations are quite general, and I would like to refine them together with you and do everything properly. For now, please make use of the option to block the magazine/author.
Those “antiwoke” people disgust me. I encourage disagreements. I don’t encourage thinly veiled hate disguised with code words. Tolerance isn’t “far left”.
I agree, I think it’s good to have a discussion, and polite disagreement is quite acceptable. But like you said, encouraging violence and hatred is not acceptable to me.
deleted by creator
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
Commenting is hard, apparently. Lol.
Tolerance of evil kind of is far left.
not really lol far lefties just want to use the bathroom without getting harassed or murdered
yeah “far left” in the US is just wanting basic human rights, something something overton window.
The far-right brings messages of hate, violence, intolerance, and attempts to pass legislation to justify their views. The far-left has brought us the weekend, the 40 hour work week, child labor laws, etc…
Not to mention the insidious evil of clean drinking water and food that won’t poison you.
the far-right
who?
messages of hate, violence
such as?
intolerance
the tu quoque is almost too tempting here
pass legislation to justify their views
this is a joke, right?
Oh, and I didn’t know people like Henry Ford and the 2nd Baron Trent were “far-left”. I guess the horseshoe really does exist after all.
Stop beating strawmen, your ideological muscles are only gonna atrophy further.the tu quoque is almost too tempting here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
We can’t be tolerant of people who are intolerant towards e.g. LGBT people; it doesn’t work out in the end.
The apparent paradox is solved by viewing tolerance as a social contract. Only those who adhere to the contract and are tolerant of others can have a claim to receive that same tolerance. Similarly those who are intolerant should have no expectation to be tolerated since they do not adhere to the social contract which should provide that tolerance.
Nonsense, we most certainly can. In fact, most countries “worked out” without ever needing to be tolerant in the first place.
Popper doesn’t even acknowledge that this notion can be universalized, and then you’re just back to square one with Carl Schmitt and the Concept of the Political.
Take your LGBT example. For that to work, you must be intolerant of, say, Salafis. Then the Salafi can respond that his in-group (the faithful, true to God, whatever) are being threatened by those who must necessarily be intolerant of him by nature of their own allegiance.
Thus you still end up with a value judgment despite Popper’s veneer of neutralization and depoliticization. That’s where the real philosophizing begins. How do you justify allegiance to one side of the friend/enemy distinction over the other?
Alright you caught me in a good mood, so I’ll throw some articles out here to explain my line of thinking. I hope you’ll see I’m not arguing with strawmen.
Article from October of last year describing right wing outrage to drag shows.
I believe some else mentioned the Paradox of Tolerance, but I will link it again just in case you missed it.
I hope this clears up my line of thinking. No invisible boogymen here - just some examples of,
In my opinion, things changing for the worst. And if you were not arguing in good faith… oh well.Yeah I get where you’re coming from but this all hinges on the concept of Popper’s Open Society taken to its most extreme.
Have you ever considered why this whole “children must be able to see drag shows” notion didn’t show up just 20 years ago?Idk, this kind of devil-on-the-wall “this is trans GENOCIDE” rhetoric when it comes to shit like increasing penalties for indecent exposure and not allowing children to attend drag shows really just says the quiet part out loud.
The “Paradox of Tolerance” is garbage. An interesting thought experiment where Popper came to the wrong conclusions. You can’t believe in “Freedom of Speech” AND “The Paradox of Tolerance”. They’re incompatible.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/toleration/
I’ll take “freedom of speech” over “governmental censorship” any day.
Because nobody thinks about what happens if a fundie takes power and decides that abortion is “intolerable” and arrests people who make pro-choice arguments because they’re being offensive. Or if anyone makes fun of religion, that’s intolerance and you must go to jail.
TLDR: Fuck “The Paradox of Tolerance”. It’s dumb.
How is one guy saying (to extremely paraphrase) “some people have used the label of freedom to exploit vulnerable people” relevant to this? Like, thats a given, that some people will use this as a guise. Now, is there a systematic problem of leftists arguing for the freedom to assault children? No, only in the imagination of projecting right-libertarians.
Michel Foucault, Gayle Rubin and Judith Butler aren’t just “some people”, they are three of the most influential thought leaders of the (post-)modern Left. Foucault of course being joined by heavyweights like Derrida, Lyotard, Deleuze, de Beauvoir, Sartre, Barthes etc. etc. and so on and so forth. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_petition_against_age_of_consent_laws
The point of course being that this thread is full of idiots who have never even heard of the likes of Foucault or truly appreciate how badly they jumped the gun here (turns out there was still some “intolerance” left). Your cult of transgression and tolerance is not philosophically sound.
With all due respect poststructuralist academics (many of whom are dead) are not the sociocultural leaders of anyone.
That 1977 petition is heinous, but I don’t think that being influenced by poststructuralism some 47 years later means anyone has to agree with those politics.
Survived just fine through Judith Butler though.
When I took a couple of critical theory oriented literary courses at uni these were the names that came up again and again, but there was no mention of their ultimate transgression. This is how the myth of an entirely dangerous right and an entirely harmless left is propagated. Just don’t mention the bad parts of the left and create one continuous antagonist group out of everyone from Ted Cruz to Heinrich Himmler. Every rightist is implicated in the actions of their most radical thought leaders, but leftists are afforded the luxury of not associating with characters like Foucault, Lenin or Mao at their own leisure.
And I know that you know this but a “thought leader” doesn’t need to be alive, so that’s not really an argument. These people are tremendously influential and popular in our time (and Butler and Rubin aren’t even dead), as demonstrated by the negative response to the Derrick Jensen lecture clip linked above.
Tolerance of evil kind of is far left.
@10A Hatred, bigotry, scapegoating of vulnerable minorities, lies, gaslighting, opposition to democracy and the rule of law is what defines the modern right. That is textbook evil, and you seem very committed to defending it. Look around, those left of you do not tolerate it. Almost every other comment is from people who want to block you or show you the door. Features are being added to this platform to specifically block your hate speech.
The paradox of tolerance states that if a society is tolerant without limit, its ability to be tolerant is eventually seized or destroyed by the intolerant. Karl Popper described it as the seemingly self-contradictory idea that in order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must retain the right to be intolerant of intolerance.
It belongs to the extremes, it is really worrying if you think that only in one of them.
It’s a fucking circle, mate
Tolerance of evil is AuthLeft
Agreed, though that’s not a common term, and the non-authoritarian left is approximately center-left. The center-left is opposed to wokeism, like Bill Maher. The center-left is pro-free-speech. All of the desire to ban speech that you see throughout this thread is extreme AuthLeft, to use that terminology.
If there’s more people here like 10A it would be great if you could speak up so I could keep building my block list
It’s kind of impressive that that already have -2000 rep
I just took a peek at that user’s profile. Saw what magazines they moderate. Not surprised we have a different point of view.
I think you’re a malevolent, hateful, backwards bigot who shouldn’t be welcome here… but I also genuinely appreciate the comedy in how you’ve been handling any references to your presence on m/FoxNews.
Fuck you, for sure, but also well done.
Aww, shucks, that’s the nicest thing anyone’s said to me all day!
It’s news about foxes, JUST AS I SUSPECTED
Ok you got me there.
The more people who will get on the platform the easier it will be to shut the intolerant and bullshitters out.
I’ve got a pretty good idea of what the “A” in “10A” stands for.
10 assholes?
10xAdolf
Amendment, if you must know.
You seem like the type of person who drives weirdly slow past preschools. It’s always you types of fuckers projecting their shit onto people they want excuses to hate.
Trans people are pedos? Find me 10 articles of incidents of a trans person getting arrested for pedophilia in the last year.
I bet I can find 10 articles of priests and Christians raping kids in the past fucking month.
Quit projecting, get off the internet, look inward, and shut your fucking mouth.
Please look up the facts. Doctors don’t “cut off sex organs” or do ANY other physical changes to trans children.
https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/crime/article263759218.html
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/transgender-sex-offender-who-attacked-29765751
https://twitter.com/OliLondonTV/status/1651861965235539969?lang=en
There you go, now hit me with the priests of the past month.
Daily Mail
Fox News
NY Post
…And a Twitter account that doesn’t link to a credible news source.Would you like to try again without the sources that continually fail fact checks and exhibit a far right bias?
How predictable. Do you have any actual arguments beyond smearing the sources? Don’t believe your lying eyes, right? Can you point to any factual inaccuracies in the articles linked or does your reasoning end at “they report inconvenient facts that don’t show up on the NYT/CNN/MSNBC/BBC front pages so they must be biased”.
And here’s the source for the tweet. Didn’t take a whole lot of effort to find (not that you even bothered ofc): https://www.cronicaviva.com.pe/pnp-arresta-a-sujeto-vestido-de-alumna-en-colegio-de-mujeres-en-huancayo-videos/
I don’t have to; you have to provide good sources to back up your claim. If I say that god exists, and then claim that the bible proves is, well, I’m not proving my point because I haven’t yet given any solid evidence to my claims. This is how a debate works when your arguing like a rational adult.
And, for the record, CNN/NYT/et al. are also biased, but they’re (usually) more factually based. Bias is not the same as factually incorrect; bias is reflected in which stories you choose to report, and what language you use in reporting. And example of a source that would be both unbiased and highly factual would be Reuters News Service, or the Christian Science Monitor. Similarly, Jabocin is strongly left-biased, but also highly factual.
Three of the sources you cited are not credible because they continually play fast and loose with facts and don’t bother verifying information. One of them was unsourced entirely, and the backup you provide is not in English–or based in the US–which makes determining the veracity difficult.
In short, you aren’t acting in good faith.
Sheesh, I know who that is already! I had them blocked ages ago. What a tool.
A single shitposter, with only downvoted posts. without attention they would have stopped posting, but now it has attention.
While the content is stupid and vile, is he breaking any rules?
Streisand effect for sure. There seems to be run of these types of posts in the fediverse lately. People don’t seem to realize that sometimes they’re better off letting these situations take their natural course (and die), and not intervene unless it grows beyond manageability.
The problem is that by that point it will have grown beyond manageability. You know the “Nazi bar” saying.
There’s a bunch of people (who are Nazis) and they seem cool, quiet, well spoken, just having a drink. And they bring their friends and those guys are cool too. Then those guys bring their friends and those guys are less cool and now normal people don’t drink at the bar anymore and you look around and it’s a Nazi bar and you can’t make them leave or they’ll start causing “problems”. So. I’m all for just using the brutal hammer of censorship.
It’s not a free speech platform and no one ever said it was.
Hate speech is not part of free speech anyways. Fuck nazis. Everyone that gets offended by that can get fucked as well.
Something else that occurred to me. If someone posted something that was pro-woke in /r/conservative or on Parler or any of those other apps, they’d get banned immediately. “Free Speech” only seems to be a concern when it’s right-wingers posting on left-leaning forums, never the reverse.
I think that taking the free speech argument at face value in the present day just means you’re gullible.
I think hardcore conservatives simply don’t have an inherent sense of empathy. That’s why they don’t really care about the victims of a crime, disaster, etc. until it happens to them personally. They do not have the perspective to put themselves in another person’s shoes.
It’s NOT an intelligence issue. It’s easy to write people off as stupid, but that’s not the case. For them, being unable to think with empathy is as natural as being unable to see infrared light.
They’ve figured out that making themselves appear to be victims can sometimes make people listen, but they can’t fully explain why. That lack of understanding is why they don’t see the hypocrisy in banning people from their platforms, but then whining loudly when they’re treated the same way.
This is all just guesswork, but it’s the best explanation I’ve been able to come up with that doesn’t make my head explode.
Cross out the “hardcore”, lack of empathy is very much a core part of conservatism no matter which side of conservatism, social | fiscal, you lean into and by how much. If you’re socially conservative you want every social aspect to stay as it is which proves inherently a lack of empathy. If you’re fiscally conservative you want monetary value to stay as is (in terms of inflation and cost-cutting etc.) no matter whom it hurts (as long as it doesn’t hurt you, of course).
Which is why I personally think it actually is (also) an intelligence issue, because the people that are not socially conservative and only fiscally conservative usually vote for the party of big government and military spending ® which goes against anything fiscally conservative and as a “cool” side effect also proves to be detrimental to social values of different people and groups.
You probably know the quote by George Carlin, as its a told tale as old as day. I think the quote nicely illustrates the voting game in the US.
Reminds me of a quote by Nazi minister of propaganda Joseph Goebbels from 1935, after the Nazis took power:
“Wenn unsere Gegner sagen: Ja, wir haben Euch doch früher die […] Freiheit der Meinung zugebilligt – –, ja, Ihr uns, das ist doch kein Beweis, daß wir das Euch auch tuen sollen! […] Daß Ihr das uns gegeben habt, – das ist ja ein Beweis dafür, wie dumm Ihr seid!”
– source
Rough translation:
“When our enemies say: But we’ve granted you […] freedom of opinion back in the day – –, well, yes, you granted it to us, but that is no proof that we should do likewise! […] The fact that you granted it to us, – that is only proof for how stupid you are!”
For fascists at least talking about freedom of speech and the like is just another tool they try to wield in their quest to gain power, nothing else.
With the very rare exception, absolutely.
It depends on your definition of free speech, the US constitution does consider it part of free speech.
The US constitution also considers free speech a right that protect a websites right not to repeat hate speech, not a users “right” to force a website to host their speech. In the constitutions view of the world free speech is protection against the government, not a tool to force other people to host your speech.
I really do not care about your constitution. I’m from Germany not the US.
‘“Germany places strict limits on speech and expression when it comes to right-wing extremism” or anything reminiscent of Nazism. Hate speech on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity also is banned in Germany.’
And I think this is the way all countries should handle it. No need to defend people promoting hate speech by debating me or your definition of free speach, I do not adhere by it.
Edit: I will wear 10A(ssholes’) downvote as a badge of honor, thank you!
I’m actually not from the US, I was just giving it as an example because it is the most famous one that unequivocally does include it.
What I’m really saying is “free speech” isn’t really one thing. It means different things in different contexts. For instance the breadth of “free speech” you should allow in what you promise to repeat (that’s what hosting something is) is much smaller than the breadth of “free speech” that you should not think less of someone for saying is in turn much smaller than the breadth of “free speech” that you should not wield the power of government to punish. And people legitimately disagree on where each of those boundaries lie.
I do think I missed the mark with the comment you replied to rereading it. I raised it because when someone says “It’s not a free speech platform and no one ever said it was” they are using the american republican-troll’s definition of free speech that means “anything but child porn”, and I think your reply was misunderstanding their comment as a result. But I don’t think I successfully conveyed my point.
Everything else aside, how you gonna say you don’t care about the US Constitution and then bring up the German Constitution? No one cares about that one either.
What is the relevance of the US constitution? This is not a US platform.
It depends on your definition of free speech
It’s one definition that is different than the definition that had been provided in the parent comment.
Appending:
Free speech also doesn’t mean “freedom from consequences.” And sometimes those include getting your shit deleted from a website or dragged up and down social media.
True, agreed. I’m only commenting on the idea that these people or groups shouldn’t get free advertising when people find them. These posts that are blasting their way to the top of “hot” just like a trending news article are counter-productive. On the Internet, which is fundamentally always at least partially an uncontrolled environment, it’s better take actions for these things that are as invisible as possible.
I’m no Nazi, but I get your point. What you don’t realize is once the bar kicks the Nazis out, they start their own bar, and there their numbers grow. A more intelligent approach is to rationally talk with them, as Daryl Davis has with KKK members.
You can’t reason a person out of a stance they didn’t reason themselves into.
For instance: How would you even begin to reason with someone that believes in demons? Where could any discussion even go if one side can waive away anything they don’t agree with by claiming it is a trick from a demon?
Your post history already proves your a nazi. You aren’t doing a good job of pretending otherwise.
I went through 3 pages of their comments and what I‘ve read were respectful and well articulated comments from someone quite religious and with conservative values.
Maybe I missed some extreme stuff but I wouldn’t be surprised if you guys are completely making this up.
Go further, where they reminisce about the time when “homosexuals were regularly taken outside and beaten to a pulp” which made it rare for anyone to think such behavior (being homosexual) was acceptable.
Their view that freedom shouldn’t include the freedom to “exercise perverted pleasures of the flesh”.
They are a modern nazi going full fascist to destroy the others they hate.
Holy shit, he has a post that basically equates being gay with murderers and thieves. He also refuses to look at evidence from sources that he perceives as left-leaning. That person is unhinged.
Just a general rule of thumb there little guy, when it comes to anything political if you find the nazis are on your side, you are on the wrong side.
They want the bar for the traffic. They can start their own bar but the extreme nature of it deters people from even setting foot.
They want to sit in places that look neutral or even friendly.
#1 rule on the internet: don’t feed the trolls. Downvote them, block them, move on. They’re not here to engage in good faith.
As someone who genuinely does enjoy trolling on rare occasion, I think you misunderstand what a troll is. Speaking sincerely held ideas from across the political spectrum does not make someone a troll. A troll is insincere yet playful. That’s not to say I shouldn’t be blocked by anyone who wants to block me, but it’s not for being a troll in this context.
A troll is insincere yet playful.
I chuckled at least. A troll’s motivation for the rise that they seek is largely inconsequential, as is the delivery mechanism. ;) Let’s not go and disenfranchise the majority of the internet’s trolling population with narrow typecasting!
While we’re on the topic of trolling, are you familiar with Sealioning?
Sealioning (also sea-lioning and sea lioning) is a type of trolling or harassment that consists of pursuing people with relentless requests for evidence, often tangential or previously addressed, while maintaining a pretense of civility and sincerity (“I’m just trying to have a debate”), and feigning ignorance of the subject matter. It may take the form of “incessant, bad-faith invitations to engage in debate”, and has been likened to a denial-of-service attack targeted at human beings. The term originated with a 2014 strip of the webcomic Wondermark by David Malki, which The Independent called “the most apt description of Twitter you’ll ever see”.
It’s a rhetorical question, no need to respond. Someone else might learn something they didn’t know before today. :)
No such thing as free speech on these “niche” social platforms. Pitchforks and torches, if this was real-life they’d be throwing you in a pond tied up and waiting for you to float…
14 day old account on its home instance, its only posting activity is within this thread, and both comments are low effort outrage farming with images.
The emotionally evocative hyperbole in the second sentence was pretty good though. Is it your own material? If so, can you write some more persecution porn for us? You don’t need images as your crutch, you’ve got some real writing talent going for you here.
A picture is worth a thousand words and just sums up this toxic thread and witch hunt.
Nah, it’s just your addiction to outrage farming on Twitter/Facebook showing. :)
and not intervene unless it grows beyond manageability.
I’d rather nip it in the bud. You’re just letting things fester.
I don’t disagree with the sentiment, but it will become impossible to accomplish, practically speaking, as the fediverse grows. There’s only so much that can be done with volunteers, and it’s not like armies of paid staffers work much better (as we’ve seen the major tech corps try to do).
There is a sociological aspect to this, numerous studies have confirmed the effects of highlighting bad actors. There’s a copycat effect (as studies on mass shootings show) as well as what we call the Streisand effect. Both inadvertently encourage others to perpetuate the behaviour rather than serving to limit it.
Allowing bad actors to advertise themselves is highlighting them. Banning them and deleting their communities is the opposite of highlighting them.
Exactly. We agree? Thats what I said/mean. This post doesn’t ban them, it’s inadvertently advertising their content. There have been several post like this recently. While they may mean well they likely have the opposite effect.
So your solution is to just give up and let hate fester? When has appeasement ever worked?
Not at all. I think you’re conflating what I said with someone else. I’m only suggested we don’t inadvertently promote this content by creating a front-page post denouncing it.
The point about it being impossible to accomplish is about perfection. It’s a wack-a-mole game. Since this content and people will always be there until found, it’s better to not give them more of an audience.
No site will ever perfectly remove objectionable content. It’s one reason why the upvote downvote system is so valuable for a site like this.
I think the problem is that at the moment, the system is new enough that there’s no way to get this sort of content removed. Hence this front page post. It’s not about calling attention to the magazine, it’s about calling attention to the entire issue…
You can’t avoid hate and hope it recedes. You have to take it directly head on and stomp it out immediately.
If they decide to move elsewhere, then follow them there and continue rooting them out.
Just “letting people decide” is useless and will only enable them to continue.
Agreed, I think you’re still conflating things I never said. Nothing was in the “let the people decide” vein.
Thats why I think it’s better to silently remove them rather then making posts saying “look at this bad guy right there”.
Where does this sentiment come from? Reddit for the most part already does this. Twitter before Elon showed up did this. Most modern sites already do this
The only place I can think of where this is commonplace is 4chan, because they don’t moderate.
Yes, highlighting bad actors over a course of time can be problematic. But the point in this case is the point out that we don’t have the tools to deal with said bad actor. The tools that other sites have. It’s not being said in vain, the goal is to make aware that something needs to be done so that people don’t even see the bad actor to bring attention to them.
There is a purpose to the current efforts. I think everyone understands that constantly bringing attention to them will do no good, but the goal here is to bring attention to tools that are needed, so that it doesn’t happen again, or at the very least to this extent.
You’d might be conflating my comment with someone else? I’m not against moderating. I just think it’s a bad idea to blast these communities or users onto the front page when they’re found.
No example has been able to squash out bad actors and unwanted content completely. That’s the impossible task I’m referring to. Neither volunteers, nor paid staff have accomplished this for any site. In all your example there are still areas flying under the radar.
As such, it’s better to not inadvertently fan the flames when you find the fire, don’t make their soapbox bigger. Instead put it out quietly so it doesn’t harm anyone else.
Examples are good when trying to point out a problem actually exists and not have certain people trying to tone it down and make it not seem like as big a problem as it is, despite even the devs acknowledging there’s a problem.
The final point is more tools are being worked on, the thread did do something, so trying to argue a point that would basically have prevented it just seems…poor taste.
Everything you’re talking is perception, friend. You chose to take my comment that way. The dev tools were being worked on long before this post.
As I said before, I’m not making this up, the phenomenon is studied and the effect is proven.
The biggest thing im afraid of happening to Kbin/the lemmyverse is that it will end up like Ruqqus, especially now that it seems to be swamped with trolls.
I expect that instances will get more locked down, perhaps those of us on an instance can vouch for new users who might join, but I can’t see how a volunteer admin could police a million user instance. I used to run a 10k user discussion site and while that wasn’t a fulltime job it was still a giant pain in the ass at times. If we can get in a steady state where an instance has a core of active posters and lurkers then that seems better than infinite growth.
That then surely leads to federated instances that each represent the tolerances of their admin(s) and they presumably federate or not with other instances with similar sensibilities.
In the end the nazis will get their nazi instance and federate with likeminded types - they get defederated everywhere else and wont really be a problem (maybe for the FBI). (Though I’m not certain that all internet nazis truly are, i think there a group of trolls that get their kicks from being controversial and will get no joy by being surrounded by people who accept them)
The problems are going to be in the gray areas. For example, the argument that trans people don’t deserve to exist… I find that abhorrent, but there are people who will happily say that on TV, and there are CEOs of $44B social networks that appear to agree. Some instances will tolerate that on the grounds of free speech and others will not, then the admins are left trying to decide what’s grounds for defederation.
However in my limited experience, the thing that kills projects like this is too much navel gazing. There will always be some trolling and noise, but if the remaining users expend all their energy talking about it then the whole thing collapses in on itself. I feel like this is starting to happen on reddit where lots of subs are consumed by meta, but the best thing we can do here is get out and create active communities.
So here’s my issue here.
This guy is clearly not a small issue. He’s being as loud and obnoxious as possible.
If there’s nothing in place to deal with one huge troublemaker, what’s to stop a dozen who come to Kbin and start making hateful communities?
My concern at this point is that Kbin itself gets defederated because the other instances don’t think it’s taking moderation seriously.
In what way is it a huge deal? In what way was it loud? (Until now)
This person had a handful of heavily downvoted posts and interactions so they never made it to the “hot” or “active” pages.
(Are we talking about the same person?)
If you take a poll of everyone in this thread I would bet almost everyone hadn’t seen these posts or heard of the username.
But now they have, with the help of this post.
Speaking for myself I’ve seen both 10A and ps making these comments. 10A has managed to amass at least -2732 downvotes, ps -653, that’s not a trivial amount of interaction. I came across an antiwoke post on the front page (I think just right after it was posted, so bad luck). And I’m holding off advocating people move to kbin until I see a moderating policy that results in banning them.
It sounds like you were viewing the “new” tab?The hot/active tabs on Kbin wouldn’t receive that content so early. It will always be a wackamole game, no platform will ever succeed 100%. Once there are more advanced moderation tools, I would suggest silently removing objectionable content or users.
Also, I’ll have to disagree slightly, thats not a lot of interaction. This single post alone has over 300 upvotes since posted. The volume of either is simply an indication of how strongly people react.
It sounds like you were viewing the “new” tab?
I don’t think so, but I couldn’t swear to it.
thats not a lot of interaction
Probably we just have different thresholds for a lot. People seeing hate 3000 times on the platform seems like a lot to me.
You missed the whole point.
He said,
what’s to stop a dozen who come to Kbin and start making hateful communities?
That’s exactly my point. Even when there are better moderating tools and the site admins have time to delete magazines, they will still pop-up faster then you can stop them. No site on the internet has ever fully solved this issue.
Since that is the reality, by avoiding inadvertently promoting them before they’re removed, a site is much more efficient at managing the workload.
Posts like this can have the unintended consequence of spawning more trolls or objectionable actors, this can and does actually make the site management harder.
I think with better moderation tools, it’s absolutely possible to silence hate speech. The modern sanitized internet has managed to do it with child porn, which was EVERYWHERE in the wild west days. It’s possible with motivation.
Hate speech is profitable, so companies generally have a profit incentive to keep it around. The fediverse doesn’t.
Wisdom ^
The rules of the internet remains unchanged, regardless of platform. Do not feed the trolls.
You are replying to the troll yourself lol
Sometimes the mobile U/I wins, but I decided to let it stand regardless of replying to the wrong comment. Maybe the troll learns something, though I doubt it.
So you advocate your own posting taking its natural course and dying off? I can think of a way you can hurry up this process.
Dude, he’s mocking you all and you don’t even get it. The more you scream the more attention you’re bringning to his magazine.
You people are hopless.
Dude, he’s mocking you all and you don’t even get it. The more you scream the more attention you’re bringning to his magazine.
Other people are not as stupid as you think. But the question between not giving it attention to challenge it and possibly giving it food to fester or not giving it attention and also not challenging it is not easily answered. Looking at the repulsive backlash, drawing attention to it was the right choice. Sure, some more people might flock there, but the vast majority strongly disapproves and now knows that kbin.social (unsurprisingly) has awful people on it as well.
Respectfully, I disagree. If you are running a bar and a nazi comes in with all their nazi periphranalia and orders a drink and behaves. You still kick them out. Because if you don’t the next time they will bring all their nazi friends and it will be much harder to kick them out and then your other patrons stop showing up because of all the nazis around and now you are running a nazi bar.
Ban hate trolls. Ban them immediately. Because if that content festers on the site it will be much harder to ban later.
Respectful Behavior
We expect all users to treat each other with respect and kindness. Harassment, hate speech, or any other form of harmful behavior will not be tolerated. We reserve the right to remove any content or user that violates these guidelines.
Isn’t this standard for anywhere that doesn’t want to end up as T_D or 4chan?
The posts itself are not rulebreaking, but i could be wrong.
But the reply here is breaking the rules
https://kbin.social/m/antiwoke/t/101045/Time-to-reject-the-extreme-trans-lobby-harming-our-societyThat’s mostly the problem with those posts, while not rule breaking, they are hate magnets.
If the moderator refuses to properly moderate the comments this would be a proper reason for a ban.
Incidentally the person breaking the rules is making the biggest stir in this thread about not banning people.
Guy literally is advocating beating people to death as a good Christian moral while also trying to advocate he shouldn’t be banned for it.
No, I did not advocate for beating people to death, and I would never advocate for that. Try reading the whole post and not taking a few words out of context.
The whole post was even more disgusting. Others are welcome to read it, Static linked it, but I stand by what I said.
If the devil did exist, he resides in your church, raising monsters.
And these are the people who would lecture about prejudice… Nothing but prejudicial bad faith in this entire thread.
Being a filthy reactionary, I was really hoping that the fediverse could become something like the reddit of 10 years ago, but it seems like the dyed-in-the-wool redditors couldn’t help but bring their intolerance with them.
Thank you for actually bothering to stand your ground. God bless.
They will always advocate for blocking over banning because they can easily make new accounts to spread their hateful message. To block a user you must first read their message; their mission is accomplished.
Should the community have to continually deal with this baggage so that hateful people can intentionally misinterpret what “free speech” means?
they are hate magnets.
And they were posted with the intent to be so. That suffices in my opinion. It’s not the lone post itself, but the context of the magazine as a whole.
If the moderator refuses to properly moderate the comments
Yes, the mod of antiwoke is about to exercise proper judgement
What a fuckin psychopath.
I mean, one of those examples is
“Time to reject the extrem trans lobby harming our society”
That is a global rule violation on most sites. Hate speech.
Genuinely curious what is hateful about that? Rejecting something does not equal hate or I guess I need to file a claim against universities and friends who rejected me.
“extreme trans lobby” is a conspiratorial misrepresentation of a group of people who would just like to live their lives.
Source?
Let me take one excerpt from that thread and I want you to ask that again
Homosexuals were regularly taken outside and beaten to a pulp, so it was extremely rare for anyone to think such behavior was acceptable.
And to summarize: He’s basically advocating “good Christian morals” as being transphobic.
But also to the original post: It is wording the advocates for trans people as being extremists who are harming our society.
Did they claim that you were harming society?
Nah, we’re nipping this shit in the bud because the shitposting is only the Trojan horse.
This shit’s already here. Now we gotta shine a light on it and deal with it.
I disagree: better to kill the evil in its infancy, rather than let it spread and hope it goes away by its own.
Removed by mod
Ha, I blocked the worst offender in the comments here, refreshed the page and now there are like… 6.
Block them too. They’re not going to engage in good faith anyway.
Oh, no no. It was that I blocked one person and there were only 6 other comments left (all fine) :D
Blocking a person seems to remove any comment tree they’re a branch in (i.e. their posts and all responses to those posts)
Hello, you who cannot see me. I’m all for blocks over bans.
Ive decided not to block him so I can follow him around annoying him and downvoting everything he says
i disagree with him obviously, but this just makes us (the people opposing him) look bad, dont do that
plus, engaging with assholes usually just prompts them to continue being assholes. it’s a lose-lose
Ive decided not to block him so I can follow him around annoying him and downvoting everything he says
Perfect example of why voting should be public!
Blocking him is the right answer, it’s the right thing to do and solves the problem of him presenting posts you don’t want to see.
<3
Yeah I was worried this could become a problem, because I imagine a lot of chuds are turned off of lemmy because of the tankie devs. Which makes sense. But I don’t think they should be welcome here, either. I’m trying to get away from that authoritarian shit, not get closer to the even worse kind of authoritarian shit.
Hold on, I dislike authoritarianism too. Isn’t it authoritarian to ban users and magazines for expressing views with which you disagree?
No. You can always fuck off to stormfront.
Isn’t it authoritarian to beat to death people expressing views with which you disagree with?
Something which you all but advocated in the thread in question? You just want a platform to advocate far more extreme methods than bans.
No, not whatsoever. Try reading my entire comment on the purpose of freedom, and not cherrypicking a few words that look damning out of context.
Also, I wrote “with which” so you didn’t need to add another “with” at the end.
Edit: This was a bad answer. See below.
You know, even if it was cherrypicked (which it was not, I stand by it, and you’re welcome to try to actually argue how that’s not what you said and not pretend I didn’t read it)
I just asked
Isn’t it authoritarian to beat to death people expressing views with which you disagree with?
You didn’t answer with “I never said that”
You answered with
No, not whatsoever.
As far as I’m concerned you’re just pretending to be a mature guy who wants people to debate, but in truth you just want to shame people away from the hate speech that’s being spewed where people are either not responding or are making arguments in bad faith in response. Basically letting the text get onto the page and hoping everyone gives up.
I’m sorry. I was replying to a lot of comments, and I totally misunderstood yours. I thought you copied and pasted what I wrote, and added the word “with”, because it ends with “with which you disagree with”. I only saw the grammatical error, not the complete change of question. Please forgive me.
Yes, of course it’s authoritarian to beat someone to death for expressing a different view! Goodness, how is that even a question.
I answered “No, not whatsoever” to your assertion that “You just want a platform to advocate far more extreme methods than bans.”
I do like to debate, but I also like to keep things on topic, so I’ve been kinda trying to avoid debates in this thread, while also standing up for the relevant aspects of my rather unpopular opinions.
I certainly don’t want to shame anyone for anything, and if I’ve inadvertently done that, I’m sorry.
Is TruthSocial just not up your alley?
Trunff Censhall!
We don’t want you here, bigot.
If it’s just about disagreement, sure. But it’s not, it’s about whether you accept the paradox of the tolerance of intolerance.
Yeah, I really hope that shit gets nipped in the bud.
The frothing hysteria over “wokeness” (ie treating your fellow humans with respect) is just a smokescreen by the oil industry, which hopes it will take some pressure off it for, you know, slowly killing us all with global warming. You do know this, don’t you?
I went through a young Republican phase, too. Then I realized that the party had nothing to offer ordinary people but contempt and cynical manipulation. Like telling people that they can be good Christians by doing the exact opposite of what Christ did. Like pitting Americans against each other for their differences. Like convincing people that the former president, a monster by any objective standard, is this country’s savior when it’s clear that he’s just shaking the nation for loose change.
It’s called “wokeness” because we finally opened our eyes, saw what was happening all around us, and decided to do something about it. You can either recognize the evil in this world, or become another oblivious victim of it.
“free speech” absolutists can host their stuff on their own instance. No need to do it here.
Woke: “the belief there are systemic injustices in American society and the need to address them.” This definition is from Ron DeSantis lead counsel.
I don’t understand how anyone can argue with the concept of woke. If you are “anti-woke” you are a racist mother fucker.
Its nice to see all the bigots popping up in one place. Makes it easier to block them. And we really need to get some instance level mods.
I mean I don’t know or even care to censur on that level but thanks for the heads up so I can block. Im thinking it would be nice to have a recommened block magazine
It’s not censorship, it’s self-defence.
The entire point about federation is that these issues largely solve themselves.
Don’t like the community…block it.
Instance is going to shit…defederate it.
The people on the anti-woke community can continue screaming into their echo chamber and no one who doesn’t want to has to listen to it without resorting to censorship and banning. Let assholes be assholes in their own instance and the rest of us can just close our sound-proof windows and not have to listen to them.
When I report his stuff it will go to him because he is the moderator of the magazin[e]?
When someone reported one of my posts (they thought it was spam) in my magazine I got a notification in my magazine panel, yes. No alert telling me there was a notification, but a notification.
Am unsure if admin likewise get a ping but almost certain they would be too busy to notice if they did.
People are allowed to have a difference of opinion. You don’t get to silence people just because you disagree with them. Please do not go down that dark path.
Believe it or not there are people who do not subscribe to certain views, bur that does not make them “hate mongerers” anymore than the extreme opposition. It’s only extremists and people who try to silence others for their views that are assholes. You live in a great big world full of a lot of differing opinions and that’s what makes it beautiful. Silencing opinions because of your personal beliefs is not acceptable.
Transphobia, racism, etc aren’t an opinion. They are hate speech. Full stop.
I am absolutely against silencing opinions. I am also absolutely in favor of silencing hate speech. Understand the difference.
What about when it’s more nuanced like “I support trans people to do whatever they want, but I don’t support transwomen in women’s sports.” Or “I am cautious about transitioning young children until we have a better medical understanding of gender dysphoria.” Seems like many here would still consider my perspective to be “hate speech,” which I, of course, find ridiculous.
When you’re discussing traits inherent to a person-- not things they do or believe, but things they are, it’s almost certainly hate speech. A quick test would be to swap the inherent thing you’re talking about with skin color, since that one seems obvious to most people. So, would you say that an opinion that you support people of color, you just don’t support them playing sports with people that aren’t POC, be nuanced opinion or hate speech?
As for your second hypothetical, that is a discussion for doctors and experts, and they’ve already had it, and that’s why children can’t get non-reversible procedures until they’re 18. No one is transitioning children; they are blocking their development so they can have a choice on how to proceed when they’re adults.
Your logic means men (not trans women) should be able to compete in women’s sports.
False equivalence. XY humans destroy XX humans in sports, it’s why we have men’s and women’s divisions - women are a protected class. Allowing XY individuals in women’s sports is not fair to women, and undermines the entire purpose of sport and a women’s division. Look at it this way : men’s division is really an open division, but we created a women’s division for the purpose of fairness.
Second point, let’s just say you don’t know how much I know about this topic or these issues. The question of reversibility by using hormone blockers is still being debated. We simply do not have enough data to know if its safe. You cannot treat hormone manipulation as some simple process. There are many feedback loops involved in the HPG axes.
regarding the sports issue, i can understand the argument that this situation could be abused for an unfair advantage. and eventually it most likely would be by someone. however i don’t have any good solutions that aren’t shitty. even an absolutely sincere trans person could still have an unfair advantage but i would never advocate discrimination by banning them from competing. either option is unfair to someone. it’s a tough issue and one that has no easy answers.
and eventually it most likely would be by someone
Err, this has already happened quite a few times.
Agreed - I think relabeling divisions as open and women (XX) divisions is the best solution. Other solutions I have heard include only regulating things at high levels of play, e.g., championships and other events that have prestigious awards. Joanna Harper has advocated the latter.
hmm - i like the idea of removing gender from divisions and instead using another criteria that better defines an individual’s ability. that way when a trans woman goes to compete they aren’t specifically put into a category for men but rather a group of people who have relatively comparable abilities. sortof like weight classes. i mean - it’s still kinda shitty because now someone has to decide based on difficult criteria who belongs where, but i think that’s a step in the right direction. i’m would hope that for trans folks, the idea that they are put into a gendered category is what is the most discriminatory rather than a skill/ability category. however, the end result would likely be the same just with different labels. maybe that’s what matters most? i don’t know. no easy answers.
Nuanced opinions are worthy of discussion. That’s not what I’ve seen on the community in question.
That’s not nuance, that’s just ignorance and a knee-jerk reaction to a very complicated issue which has to be left to experts, who, in addition to being normal people with compassion and love like most of us towards their fellow humans, know the most about their topic of expertise than any of us.
It is indeed nuance. Just because you’re not well read or educated on the topic, doesn’t mean I am not. I have been thinking about these things for years and years, and I do indeed have a formal education in biology. So, no, not a knee-jerk reaction, sorry. Again, I am all for letting trans individuals transition and exist how they want, and I am all for respecting pronoun usage, and whatever else - that is compassion towards fellow humans. I am just pointing out two aspects of this debate where I have my own thoughts that have some slight pushback on progressive perspectives.
Racism is disgusting but transpobia? I don’t believe that’s hate speech. People can not like something but not wish death on the person or outright hate who they are as a person. People are allowed to dislike certain behaviors. It’s not comparable to racism and its definitely not hate speech.
“Disagreements” are for things like tax milage, or whether or not a school needs a new football field. “Disagreements” are not for things like, “jews should be gassed”, or “trans people are all pedophiles”.
No, we’re not going to let shitheads like this ruin our community.
Disagreeing with someone having the right to exist is not an opinion.
If your “certain view” is that trans people, other queer people, and/or anyone left of Tucker Carlson shouldn’t exist, you’ve opted out of the social contract of tolerance and should expect to be shunned.
Tolerance is either a two way street or a suicide pact and I’m not here to watch people die so the worst dregs of humanity can spew their garbage.
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. […] for it may easily turn out that [the intolerant] are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; [the intolerant] may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive […] We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.
We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to [other crimes] as criminal.
complexity does not inherently make your argument better. “Slavery is is horrible and evil but free black people shouldn’t have the right to vote” is a “nuanced opinion,” but that doesn’t mean it isn’t racist and terrible.
Look up the tolerance paradox and then suck my dick
What if my ideas are so fragile that mere exposure to a contrasting opinion makes them crumble?
