kbin.social and lemmy.world defederated from exploding-heads a few days ago. I went there once and the whole site looks like /r/the_donald before it was banned. Full of propaganda and lies, misinformation. anti-vax nonsense, election disinformation. Good riddance.
this post was submitted on 30 Jun 2023
14 points (79.2% liked)
Mander
432 readers
3 users here now
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
For what it’s worth, Lemmy.world defederated with them a few days ago. I feel like it was a good move.
It looks like sh.itjust.works is going to as well
Edit: I am having issues with Jerboa, and don't seem to able to link the OP, Here is one of the comments (which should take you to the OP). Currently 314 comments about it.
Edit: we are voting on it, Here is an exploding.heads user voting against defederation
I expect things may be a little chaotic over the coming weeks and months.
I'm used to having people or memes I strongly disagree with on my feeds, I'm less used to AI porn on my feed....it's come a long way since Leisure Suit Larry.
Reddit had plenty blatant transphobia, racism, misinformation, antivax stuff etc. But generally outwith particular subreddits it was mocked, argued against, downvoted, removed or users banned. This seems more like r/Science blocking everyone from r/Conservative.
There is rapid growth and communities are being stress tested with far more than just an increase in bandwidth.
As the Lemmy code improves and more 3rd party tools are made available, tailoring Lemmy feeds for the individual should become easier to mod and manage without server sized banhammers.
In the mean time I'm prepared to tolerate some chaos, porn and shit posting....and also understand if instances feel defederating others is the best course of action in the mean time.
Switching between instances is super easy in Jerboa or in browser and whilst this instance is the best I've found I will be keeping an eye on things from a few vantage points.
Mind you, there were subreddits that employed this technique of banning users subscribed or active in other communities they didn't like or approved of. So I guess that would be nothing new. I just wish there was a user-side way to block, at the very least the content coming from instances you don't want to follow. But then you could be still engaged by the users coming from these instances. Then again there are ass hats everywhere.
Blocking people for subscribing or participating in certain communities was the most childish part of spezland. It seemed like a esclating war of control rather than a forum for communication. Good riddens!
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
I prefer to deal with content in a case-by-case basis, and de-federation from an instance would be the very last-resort strategy. I want users to have the freedom to choose what they interact with. Today it's exploding-heads, soon it will be Meta, then some might want to defederate from lemmygrad, and after that something else.
My position is to resist de-federation. To defederate I would need to have seen that the users asking for defederation have made an effort not to engage with the content by blocking communities and reporting offending users/content who post to our communities, and the scale of the problem must be so significant that I can no longer deal with it manually. As of today, I have received zero reports of exploding-heads.
I have looked at the communities, and I can see that we have fetched content from the following communities:
It is only five communities, and my suggestion is to block them if you find their content offensive. I hope that users will soon be able to block instances themselves.
If this is a deal-breaker, defederating with problematic instances is a very common position in the fediverse, and it will be easy to find an instance that blocks them.
It may not be wise to wait and watch with this one. Part of the reason people are leaving Reddit like myself is we do not want to deal with this anymore. These do not argue in good faith. They will eventually brigade us with the next controversy. I suggest asking your users and listening on this one. This is not a safe place unless defended, that sometimes means being proactive. Consider this my report as well.
load more comments
(7 replies)
I echo the sentiment that we should not take a wait and see approach to bigotry and anti-science sentiment. We should defederate proactively.
Technical question: while the instance is federated, its users can post here, right? Do you have any moderating tools that allow you to monitor incoming comments from users from a "fishy" instance as they come in?
My fear is that they have not accumulated enough of a mass of users yet, and enough of an interest in a "small" platform like Lemmy yet, but that the crowd will come once Lemmy becomes an established platform, which will make real infiltration efforts worthwhile.
And then we'll have to deal with the usual tactics: brigades organized offsite (on discord, telegram..) to drop on anything trans/immigration/etc. related like a plague of locusts. Teams of users posturing as the "sane one" and "crazy one" allowing the "sane" actor to push far-right points that "make sense" next to pure extremism. Threats sent as PMs to individual users. Doxxing, online stalking. And, behind that, their host doing nothing to prevent- or facilitating - the behavior.
I'm fine with you not taking action for now, but would you be ready to drop the hammer if they become problematic and user-level blocking of instances is not yet a thing?
Edit: I commented on the wrong account, but I also have one on Mander.
I was on Lemmy two years ago (or something like that), and I ultimately left because of the gore brigading that kept happening. Mods were unable to control it. Wasn't that a thing on Mander as well?
We haven't had anyone using Mander as their home base in a brigade yet, fortunately, and it would be nice if it stays that way. But I do remember multiple brigades, and I do not think that we are much better prepared today than we were back then in terms of the tools that we have to detect these before our users see them.
The users were being created in many instances, mainly lemmy.ml and new instances that were created for the brigades. Around then was when lemmy introduced the application for registering and recommended others to implement them too.
Defederating is not very effective against a brigade because new instances can be spun-up quickly. White-list federation with instances that have an application is a more effective strategy, but with white list federation you cut out every new person who wants to join the fediverse from their small instance. If an instance is used to brigade, I'll block it until the admin can get things under control (if ever), and then unblock it. It's as simple as that.
Yeah, I'm with you on this. I will probably go back to lurking* if this is how it is because I do not want a target on my head as a proactive poster. I would have instance blocked them ages ago, but Lemmy in its current state leaves us unable to defend ourselves in this way. By the time that hammer is dropped if it does, the targets will already have been made. Hell, I grew up in a place where a lot of these people come from and I left there too for a reason. We cannot build and be proactive if our base is undefended.
*If I start seeing it.
load more comments
(8 replies)
Chipping in to say I support defederation from exploding-heads. I don't consider myself someone who likes to go knee deep into what's considered "politics" either, but allowing known bad-faith actors to discuss anything is not a good idea, from my experience. Conversations go off the rails quickly. Especially when such actors discriminate against marginalized groups (as unfortunately politicized as they are in recent times).
On that note, I can't seem to block the following communities? Not sure if the buttons are broken, but it only allows me to highlight text.
I wonder if it's the same issue I posted about here: https://slrpnk.net/post/602890
Very helpful, thanks
I don't disagree, what I disagree is with a blocking action before they actually come and act in bad faith in a way that is difficult to contain. I see blocking an instance as an absolute last resort, after other approaches have failed. I do not want to block an instance because it has a potential to do something, a high likelyhood of doing so, or because it has done it to some other instance. I understand that this is an unpopular view, and that many prefer a proactive approach.
I can see that same issue when I clicked the link, I am not sure why. Worth looking into it. But refreshing the page fixed the button for me, does it do it for you?
I can see why you'd think that, and I'm also not one for knee-jerk reactions. I've moderated communities in the past where the rules insisted that heavy discussions and politics were to be taken elsewhere.
However, I think it's quite telling seeing how other instances have blocked them already, and, if you put exploding-heads into the search bar, there's quite a number of anecdotes of the damage they're causing. It's only a matter of time before they get here, and the damage may be subtle and insidious at first. :/
I'll put my opinions aside. Out of curiosity, what makes you think blocking is such an "absolute last resort" that it seems like too drastic an action? I don't really understand what value exploding-heads brings to us, and if it's truly, somehow, the wrong move (personally doubtful), we can always re-federate. I think prioritizing the comfort and safety of users who actually use mander.xyz is more important, since they're the ones contributing content to the instance.
Refreshing doesn't help for me, BTW. Still see the same issue on my end.
I’ll put my opinions aside. Out of curiosity, what makes you think blocking is such an “absolute last resort” that it seems like too drastic an action? I don’t really understand what value exploding-heads brings to us, and if it’s truly, somehow, the wrong move (personally doubtful), we can always re-federate. I think prioritizing the comfort and safety of users who actually use mander.xyz is more important, since they’re the ones contributing content to the instance.
There are some practical reasons and some ideological considerations.
First, I want to point out that this is not about exploding-heads. I genuinely do not think that exploding-heads is a significant threat due to its scale. It has about 30 active users. I have had to deal with an orders-of-magnitude larger amount of disturbing material from users being created in the larger instances. If we are objective and serious about addressing the threat of disturbing content brigades, we should defederate with lemmy.ml, sh.itjust.works, lemmugrad.ml, and lemmy.world - because, due to their scale, they are overwhelmingly the worst offenders.
A practical reason for opting for a non-defederation strategy is that the userbase will disagree with what they want to federate or defederate with. I think that exploding-heads is an easy one to point at, because they produce offensive content, they use foul language, and spew racist/homophobic views. We can all agree that their views are harmful, so we defederate. Then, next week, users come in asking to defederate from lemmygrad.ml because the have a Death to NATO community, or from lemmy.ml because of one of the admin/developer's essays about the Uyghur genocide. Once I enact a blocking policy, this gives users the platform to fight for what gets and what doesn't get federated, and I am in the position of having to defend and justify every federating action. I do not want to be the person in charge of filtering what people can and can't see, and I also don't want some of the users to make these choices for other users. It is impossible to make everyone happy. Personally, I am curious to see any content that is out there. Yes, even if I strongly disagree with it, or if it is offensive. And so, why would I be the one to limit the network for myself and others? I prefer to provide a space where the admin does not choose limit what anyone can and can't access outside of the instance.
The ideological reason is that I genuinely believe that most people are good people. Yes, even communists, and the people creating offensive edgy-memes at exploding-heads, and probably many violent criminals as well. I think that most of these are good people, and that they genuinely would like the world to be a better place. More often than not I disagree with their beliefs, and their methods. And tolerance has some hard limits, but they have to be crossed. I don't believe in assuming the worst of people as a defensive action. I think that the hate that we see in online communities is in large part the result of polarization more than it is a function of our disagreements. Today's world is too polarized, and this polarization is the root of a large amount of society's problems. Some of this polarization is natural, but the media and politicians benefit from it, and they have agreed to amplify this polarization - either on purpose or through the structures that naturally arise. The action of defederating is a polarizing action, one in which we outright reject a group of people, and and contributes towards this polarization. That is why I do not think that this an action to be taken lightly. A network that I want to help build should serve as a tool to reduce, not to amplify, polarization.
Interesting points. I think you managed to articulate a POV I hadn't considered.
I think you make a good point regarding polarization. However, from my prior experience with extremists in particular, I cannot bring myself to give them the time of day. It is true that this amplifies polarization, but there is only so much time and energy I can spend dealing with such folks. Believe me, I have an ex-friend who was (probably still is) a neo-nazi, and the years I've kept them around felt like a waste of my time, and a drain on my spirit, despite attempts to be understanding.
I don't believe that it'll be a slippery slope in users calling for increasing amounts of instances to be defederated, either. It's not difficult to draw a line against extremists, and I think users can understand that.
At the end of the day I respect your viewpoint, but I may have to leave this instance if no action is taken because I simply do not have the mental energy to deal with extremist content, even if it's not an immediate problem. Thanks for engaging with my questions anyway, though!
However, from my prior experience with extremists in particular, I cannot bring myself to give them the time of day. It is true that this amplifies polarization, but there is only so much time and energy I can spend dealing with such folks. Believe me, I have an ex-friend who was (probably still is) a neo-nazi, and the years I’ve kept them around felt like a waste of my time, and a drain on my spirit, despite attempts to be understanding.
I understand that. In my case, I grew up in a small city in Yucatan in a boys-only catholic school. I went to a boarding school in the US when I was 15 for a year, and I was a catholic extremist teen at that point. I had been indoctrinated with "catholic family values" and taught to reject multiple lifestyles and behaviors as sinful and unnatural. And what brought me out of my bubble was meeting people and making friends that were very different from me in the US, who espoused very different values, and reading about those values online (at that point the internet was still kind of being developed). It wasn't a fast transformation, it took a lot of self-reflection. I came back home to pretty much fight with everyone in my community next 3 years and used every opportunity to preach acceptance. I was the "extremist" once again in my community, but now fighting for the side of 'satan', 'sin' and the 'unnatural'. So I think that my experiences are what make me feel like it is important to allow people to connect, rather than forcing each other into their own bubble. But yes, maybe it is not what is optimal. And we will find out, as the network evolves. This strategy may be unsuccessful and through a process of natural selection this strategy will be weeded out. I do not intend to let the instance become a platform for hate.
At the end of the day I respect your viewpoint, but I may have to leave this instance if no action is taken because I simply do not have the mental energy to deal with extremist content, even if it’s not an immediate problem. Thanks for engaging with my questions anyway, though!
I understand 100%!! I will do my best not to let it to come to this. It is true that not being so proactive increases the risk of this state being transiently visited. The way I see it is "Ok, let's first try to deal with this by taking atomic steps, instead of creating a community where the easy nuclear action is the default". But I fully understand the skepticism.
I have no issues when it comes to purging specific posts, comments, users, and communities that focus on hate. I visited the exploding-heads site and have seen some communities that I would purge if someone fetched them from this instance, but no one has fetched them, and no one has reported them. They don't exist in Mander. I am writing an actual policy now so that I can at least have a better framework to work with... Once I have that I might pull them myself and purge them. But I want to set the rules first. I do listen to everyone and try to make something fair, but it is.... actually a lot of work 😅 It would be much easier to block them and be done with it.
There are many comments on this issue. It is a bit fun and interesting, but it also takes a lot of time to think and write so much... I will focus on trying to write an actual policy instead of addressing individual comments.
If not here, I hope you do find a nice place to park in the fediverse! Thank you for giving it a chance.
Thank you for this. After a good, long think, this makes me feel better. I realise am noisy, but it's because I am passionate about good science spaces. :)
This is really well said. I know you're in a difficult position here, but I do want to say that I really respect the approach you are taking.
Thanks for this. Please don't cave in to those wanting to create another walled garden. Small groups of asshats aren't enough to notice.
Myself, I hope that general instances like lemmy.world eventually shrink and die as people migrate to instances with a theme or interest. That will keep the fediverse open and avoid one instance becoming too large.
Sometimes you have to interact with the community for those options to show up.
Egh, that just defeats the purpose of blocking, doesn't it? I don't want to get near those communities with a ten, thirty foot pole. Thanks for the input, though.
You are shifting responsibility of moderation onto users. What you should be doing for all of us, you are asking us to do ourselves. Each of us would have to moderate the same content, and with fewer tools to do it. Massive duplication of effort and needless exposure to harmful content (or perhaps you find value in that type of content?).
If this is your stance and you are done thinking about this, I mourn what this instance might have been.
load more comments
(3 replies)
I want to know too. It's time for this instance to establish some basic moral framework.
Open discussion and interaction for the purpose of exchanging ideas and learning from one another is essential, and that only happens in an environment where people feel encouraged and safe. (The word safe can be a trigger for some and is often misinterpreted, so let me narrow the definition to the sense that you feel in control over your own well-being so that you can push your comfort zone on your own terms and grow as a person without having your comfort zone invaded and vandalised).
If people are made to feel discouraged and unsafe by a foul atmosphere and repeated exposure to content/interactions that degrade their health in any way (directly or indirectly; short term or long term), they will not benefit from any supposed openness or freedoms.
Whether some content technically breaks any explicit rules or not is inconsequential to the impact it has on the well-being of a community, so I don't want to see this place moderated under some false pretence of impartiality. Just keep it tidy and healthy so that we can focus on what we're all here for. If someone wants to go swimming with the sharks they can very well do so on some free speech instance. We all know what those are like. And there is a reason they end up that way.
Here is a relevant podcast episode by Sean Carroll (includes transcript). He identifies as an intellectual who is interested in open, rational debate, and gives some considered thoughts on how to balance moral principles like free speech vs people's well-being. If you have time and interest, I can recommend it (and his podcast in general).
Ooo thanks for this! I just came here to lurk this servers decision on exploding heads, but I got a cool podcast link!
I'm not from your instance, but I share the following information regarding how other instances feel regarding EH.
https://fba.ryona.agency/?domain=exploding-heads.com
when your instance defederated list becomes a reasonable map of the fediverse you know you fucked up
Lmao they even have other Fediverse platform servers blocking them.
view more: next ›