Lemmy.world Admin Response to Defederation from Exploding Heads
Lemmy.world Admin Response to Defederation from Exploding Heads
We're closing this thread. Everything that could be said has been said. Thank you
Original Post:
Today, we want to inform everyone that we have decided to defederate from https://exploding-heads.com/. We understand that defederating should always be a last resort, and individuals can certainly block communities. However, blocking alone does not prevent potential harm to vulnerable communities.
After carefully reviewing the instance, reported posts, and multiple comments from the community, we have concluded that exploding-heads is not adhering to the Lemmy or Citizen Code of Conduct. Therefore, we cannot, in good faith, continue to federate with an instance that consistently promotes hate, racism, and bullying.
Examples:
https://lemmy.world/post/577526 - Community Moderator Harassment
https://exploding-heads.com/post/92194 - Systemadmin Post
https://exploding-heads.com/post/90780 - Systemadmin Post
https://exploding-heads.com/post/91488 - Systemadmin Post
https://exploding-heads.com/post/93725 - Community Moderator Post
Again, deciding to defederate from an instance is not taken lightly. In the future, we will continue to review instances on a case-by-case bases.
As for our community, please refrain from posting or commenting with hateful words as well. Arguing back and calling people names is not the solution. The best course of action is to report the posts or comments violating our server rules.
Lemmy Code of Conduct
https://join-lemmy.org/docs/code_of_conduct.html
Citizen Code of Conduct https://github.com/stumpsyn/policies/blob/master/citizen_code_of_conduct.md
“We are committed to providing a friendly, safe, and welcoming environment for all, regardless of level of experience, gender identity and expression, sexual orientation, disability, personal appearance, body size, race, ethnicity, age, religion, nationality, or other similar characteristic.”
You're viewing a single thread.
Glad I chose kbin over lemmy at this point. I'm hoping @ernest to be more levelheaded and not wield the defederation hammer as lightly.
I'd prefer being able to see as much of the fediverse from one instance as possible.
see hate speech!
Meanwhile; the things I've seen:
Wow, amazing examples! So much ownage there! You're right, I also want my fake Trumper news all over Lemmy! God knows that's what I miss the most from Reddit; antivaxx bullshit and insurrection supporters!
It wasn't my intention to try to "own" anyone. The content I listed is literally what I've seen from the few communities I subscribe to from exploding-heads. Neither look like they could reasonably qualify as hate speech to me.
So you're arguing that the claims of hate speech on that instance are overblown because you've seen exactly two posts, neither of which you consider hate speech?
Cool story.
That is an oversimplification of the "cool story".
@VoxAdActa called me a "cry baby" out of nowhere, "for having to go somewhere else to see hate speech".
I then showed him what I've seen so far from having been subscribed to two different communities over on exploding-heads, and I went on to state that I hardly see how that content is hate speech.
I was trying to elaborate that I wasn't interested in whatever memes they have in a certain community over there, but rather the other content that can be found on that instance, of which I gave examples of. Examples that I would argue are not hate speech in the slightest.
To answer your question though; I'd argue that the claims of hate speech seem overblown to me, yes. Not because of my limited exposure to the instance, but by the examples brought in the defederation announcement, which seem to consist of a couple of bad, edgy memes.
So comments calling Michelle Obama an ape, or a meme making fun of burning LGBTQ+ people, aren't hate speech, they're just "edgy"? Cool. "Remember when God burned a whole bunch of gays? Good times!" is about as textbook "hate speech" as you can get, but you keep working on how to excuse it as "humor".
Regardless, the fact that you're subbed to exactly 2 of the hundreds of communities on that server does not make your personal experience a valid representation or defense of admin/moderator policies and actions from that server. If the community takes the stance of "fuck them" and advocates that "admin’s keep their edgy content on alt accounts and in communities that pussy instances can just block", then they're absolutely going to be a continuing source of problems. If you really want to see their content so badly, you can create a login on another server that hasn't defederated them (including their own server). That's how this whole things works.
I actually agree a bit that the original "cry baby" response you got seemed a bit excessive, but the more you talk, the more it seems to have perfectly identified you.
So comments calling Michelle Obama an ape, or a meme making fun of burning LGBTQ+ people, aren't hate speech, they're just "edgy"? Cool. "Remember when God burned a whole bunch of gays? Good times!" is about as textbook "hate speech" as you can get, but you keep working on how to excuse it as "humor".
That certainly is an interesting take on the memes. I appreciate your sharing your view. I definitely saw those examples with completely different context and meaning. This goes to show how much is really in the eye of the beholder.
To illustrate, I didn't think of the Michelle Obama one as referring to her being an "ape", I thought of the meme as referencing the conspiracy theory of Michelle Obama being born male?
And the "1st pride celebration" meme seems to me to be referencing some supremely bigoted supreme being that would supposedly reign fire down on sinners or something, not a literal meme "making fun of burning LGBTQ+ people". If it was a meme about the latter, I'd agree, that's hate speech, and I don't think even exploding-heads allows that, looking at their rules just now?
So yes, I view them as stupid edgy memes, but not hate speech. The examples I've seen all seem to show stupid jokes that I wouldn't go looking for or spread personally. And the only reason that I'm seeing them now, despite being subscribed to communities over at exploding-heads, is that they are used as examples that defederation occurred.
I still stand by my thinking that defederation was a harsh reaction, but lemmy.world can do as lemmy.world pleases. That's why I'm registered at kbin.social, and not lemmy.world. That's the beauty of the fediverse. If it ends up that kbin defederates from exploding-heads also, I'll look at the reasons stated then as objectively as possible and evaluate. I might come to a different thoughts then, if I see examples that makes sense. Lemmy.world's examples doesn't make sense to me as reasons to defederate though, if they were used as reasons to defederate also on kbin.social.
but the more you talk, the more it seems to have perfectly identified you.
I'm just trying to state my view point of things as sucinctly yet clearly as possible as to avoid misunderstandings. I don't have a chicken in this fight, so to speak, other than just wanting what I stated first thing in this thread, and that is "being able to see as much of the fediverse from one instance as possible" and hoping that kbin "not wield the defederation hammer as lightly" as lemmy.world did. If explaining my thought process as detailed as possible makes me a "cry baby", fine. I would think it just makes me autistic, but hey, I've been called worse.
The comment calling Michelle Obama an ape is the top rated comment under the meme. A mod made the comment.
As for the LGBTQ+ meme, the key part you're missing is that it identifies it as the first Pride celebration. That makes it explicitly clear that it is making fun of burning LGBTQ+ people. They're literally celebrating the idea. God punishing "sinners" is only a "celebration" if you take joy in seeing that group of people suffer... because, you know... you hate them.
These things can only really be seen as just "stupid edgy memes" if you deliberately ignore context, like how the people in the community are reacting to the memes, or even how they're describing them. And ignoring context is one of the go-to strategies for hate-speech apologists. I'm not saying that that's your intent, but you're citing the same arguments and using the same tactics as the "reasonable" hate speech advocates consistently make to try to legitimize the idea that hate speech is a valid form of expression of opinion that should be treated as protected speech.
And for the record, when I said that comment seems to have perfectly identified, I was referring to the text, rather than the meme. You seem increasingly invested in the idea that people should have easy access to hate speech. The crybaby part is much less relevant.
You're referring to the reply by @Fisuxcel?
Big fat ape
Surely that comment is directed toward the other user in that thread who commented that the meme itself wasn't funny. It's colorful speech, but if that's hate speech, I'm unsure what definition of hate speech one must have to regard it as such. I'd be genuinely interested to know. Would calling someone a "big fat cat" similarly be classified as hate speech?
As for the LGBTQ+ meme, the key part you're missing is that it identifies it as the first Pride celebration. That makes it explicitly clear that it is making fun of burning LGBTQ+ people. They're literally celebrating the idea. God punishing "sinners" is only a "celebration" if you take joy in seeing that group of people suffer... because, you know... you hate them.
See here I also really appreciate you laying out your thought process. I hadn't yet thought how someone could perceive it precisely like that. As if the celebration is not the pride event, but some abstract on-lookers celebrating the destruction of the first pride celebration. It seems more like a symbolic or abstract interpretation of what the meme literally portrays. To me it seems out of context. I certainly don't see it as that when I see that meme. I see at as someone making a meme where they seem to imply the amount of chaos that reigns down is proportional to the amount of celebrants at the 1st pride celebration. More sin equals more destruction, chuckles had, basically, something like that. Supreme being being supreme. Edgy meme, sure, but not that funny. I've seen far worse about horrific events that are actually funny. For a long time it was virtually impossible to joke about 9/11 as an example, thankfully that phase is well in passing by now. At least that was my impression, but I may be proven too optimistic in regards to that.
These things can only really be seen as just "stupid edgy memes" if you deliberately ignore context, like how the people in the community are reacting to the memes, or even how they're describing them. And ignoring context is one of the go-to strategies for hate-speech apologists. I'm not saying that that's your intent, but you're citing the same arguments and using the same tactics as the "reasonable" hate speech advocates consistently make to try to legitimize the idea that hate speech is a valid form of expression of opinion that should be treated as protected speech.
So in other words you are prejudiced in interpreting my motivations as being that of others which I may look like at surface level to you? My stance is that in my country there are laws for dealing with hate speech and I believe they address them fine, and I'm looking for no more or no less from the platforms on which I communicate. Others might disagree, and that's fine to me, and I'll happily exchange thoughts. I feel we did that more in the days of yore on the internet, but it's less common today. As for purposefully or deliberately ignoring the context of a meme; if our interpretation of the context or meaning of the memes themselves differ so much, how can it even be deliberately ignored if we can't share a common definition of what's even going on? It's not my intention to come across as ignoring context that others may experience. Everyone has a valid interpretation of reality in reference to their own experience, but I'm also not required in any way to submit to others' interpretations either. That's the beauty of free speech in my opinion.
And for the record, when I said that comment seems to have perfectly identified, I was referring to the text, rather than the meme. You seem increasingly invested in the idea that people should have easy access to hate speech. The crybaby part is much less relevant.
Right, I think I understand. So you saw it as me doubling down on the side of hate speech, pretty much. Here's where our opinion differ again. I can't identify the examples as hate speech. Hate speech is far more egregious than the context I'm seeing, unless you are somehow seeing a far bigger context, which I'm failing to see. I'd rather engage with individuals directly than on some higher ideological level.
I might seem increasingly invested, but the fact is I'm already vested since long ago in the idea of open debate, the value of differing and diverse opinions, ability to voice your them freely, and the absolutely paramount need for modern systems in place that facilitate this. This is why I'm giving kbin a shot. Not because I just want another Reddit. The whole federation thing seems like am ample chance to make free speech cost less and mean more than on a shitty, corporately controlled, centralized place like Reddit.
@VoxAdActa called me a “cry baby” out of nowhere, “for having to go somewhere else to see hate speech”.
Perhaps you should report them. From the lemmy code of conduct:
"Personal insults, particularly those related to gender, sexual orientation, race, religion, or disability."
Oh wait, being ageist is perfectly acceptable.
Oh, yes, absolutely. I would love for a guy who enjoys "Michelle Obama is an ape-man" and "burning gays is fun" memes to report someone for implying the tamest possible of insults in his direction. It would be an absolutely perfect symmetry. Symmetrical like a snowflake.
Go on, tattle.
It was more a matter of me personally not wanting to see the person in question in the future. I see nothing worth reporting over by calling me "cry baby", that would have been an overreaction.
Though if you scroll up a bit, you will see someone issuing literal death threats. That's worthy a report, I would say.
Also, the "you can just block them" apparently doesn't work. I blocked you, but still continue to get notifications that you've replied to me, and can see everything you say from there. So I guess what you want for us is to not be able to respond to antivaxx pro-coup bigotry (because I couldn't write this comment until I unblocked you, even though I could see yours), but we should definitely be forced to see it.
If it makes you feel any better, I had blocked you too after the "cry baby" comment, when I suddenly got a notification that you had replied, and similarly unblocked you just to respond. Funny how that works.
I like that your examples are a long-repeated "call" for freeing a guy directly involved with attempts to interfere in US elections, and an idiot anti-vaxxer being pushed by rightwingers as a democrat candidate.
I do suppose that some could view exposing wide spread corruption, human rights abuses and war crimes as interference.
Regarding the latter, surely the focus was on decriminalizing cannabis. I personally find that laudable for any political candidate, no matter where in the world they are located, geographically or on the political spectrum.
It just be so hard going through life not being able to read or think critically
My focal point is the content linked, as in RFK Jr. calling for decriminalization of cannabis. I understand that @TheRealNeenja focuses on him being an undesirable or whatever, but I don't see how that matters in the slightest. I've already stated that my interest was in the part about decriminalizing cannabis.
As for the part about interference in US elections, don't worry. I can't vote, and I don't much care about US politics. Not more than keeping up with it in order to know what'll get exported to the world soon enough. I'd rather see decriminalization of cannabis being exported than the usual identity politics and authoritarian censorship in the name of security, but hey, that's my preferences.
Yeah ok. You just want to ignore all the shitty stuff because you'd prefer to talk about cannabis because that's an easier narrative to defend. You're not fooling anyone here
It's really not being wielded lightly in this case. This instance is defederated from many instances at this point. They're not providing valuable content, and seem to be constantly invoking the Nazi Bar analogy.
And I honestly expect Kbin will probably do something regarding it at some point. As someone else noted Ernest is very overwhelmed atm. There was a post yesterday where he responded saying he's working on more moderation tools.
What you might call "censorship" is also called curation, and yes, people flock to instances where content is well-curated. An instance owner likely goes to a lot of trouble to create and moderate some communities where people can have fun discussions about cool things. They bring forward cool stuff, and they remove shitty stuff.
Popular communities back on Reddit had mods that didn't just act as the bouncer at the door, but also did things like setting up AMAs with guests, or getting the community to post pics of John Oliver.
Cope
Ernest has already said it’s on his radar and he will get to it when he has the chance.
I agree. I'm an adult. I'd like to be in control of what I see. I really don't want my instance administrator to make that call for me. I can easily block users and communities I don't like.
Then jump to a different instance or create your own.
Precisely. Want that garbage? Go join their instance then.
I can only speak for myself, but that's why I'm on kbin and not on lemmy.world.
Blocking is a good tool for users of an instance.
The point that a lot of people seem to miss is that those who admin an instance are responsible for the federated content from other instances.
It's a matter of time before their content crosses legal boundaries if it hasn't already. At the very least, the federated content can be considered indicative of your own content.
If you want to be an adult that hosts this shit on your instance, that's great. I wouldn't.
This. We are all adults, or should be. It's ok to not find their memes 'funny' in any fucking way, but for the admins to choose defederations, its a bit too much, since we can at user level, block specific instances.
The community largely doesn’t want to see it. Look at the upvote/downvote ratio of any comment critical of this move.
Eh, if you see racists and nazis on the street you would also try to avoid interacting with them.
This is the Lemmy equivalent of "enjoy your cesspool of vile and hatred, but please keep it confined to the dumpster you call an instance."
More than warranted in this case, as outlined by some posts of even the admins and mods.
More directly: ANY instance that claims that explicitly allows "some" racism should be defederated immediately.