It was banned on Reddit because it is racist, hatefull and spread Conspiracies.
In my new community I expect the exclution of racist communities. It is easy now with defederation. Nazis can do whatever they want on their instances, but the instances I want to be part of should not amplify their shit and flush it into our timelines.
The instance-admin of !thedonald@sh.itjust.works did not reply to my message. Big instances seem not to defederate with them.
The new TD may not be a success, the point is not to give Nazis a platform like it is happening now. Fans of TD are racists.
Where are the instances that show face against racism?
edit: to contact the admins: @donut @TheDude @smorks
edit2: @TheDude deleted the community :)
Note that, by laissez faire approach, I donāt mean ādo nothing at allā; thatās incompetence, and incompetent admins go fuck themselves, as you said. For me, laissez faire means ākeep a close watch on the situation, and intervene if necessary, but otherwise let the userbase handle itā.
And in this case you got a rather engaged community, whoās most likely prone to engage those Nazi, and tell them to fuck off. Is admin intervention necessary in this case?
Iām not sure if a laissez faire approach would be a good approach in this specific case, but itās generally a good ādefaultā - often people managing communities cause more harm than good when theyāre trying to proactively solve issues that didnāt appear yet.
Thatās a great point - the reversibility makes the option less drastic. Still annoying for legitimate users and admins of other instances.
āIf necessaryā is doing all of the work there. By your meaningless definition of the word, I agree thatās a good approach, but youāre letting insinuation occupy the entire point in dispute. We both know what ālaissez-faireā actually means, and I think the Gilded Age showed us what a shit approach it is.
Yes, it is. I am quite familiar with how these dynamics work ā I followed r/cth for about a year before it was quarantined. It was probably the most-hated sub of its time outside of literal Nazi subs (remember TD was long-inactive at that point). People complained about it all over the place for a variety of reasons, both good and bad faith. With all the controversy, do you know what it never was before it got quarantined? And honestly not even before it was banned? Neutralized. The vocal hatred against it fed its growth, and the userbase was quite aware of this fact and took advantage of it actively. When it was finally banned, the slide in Redditās entire user culture on the popular and political subs was palpable, and that transformation took maybe a month.
Now, unlike the Reddit admins, I wonāt equivocate between TD and cth, they were not the same in a pat little horseshoe theory conception because horseshoe theory is horseshit. That said, it nonetheless stands as a glaringly obvious counter example to your flimsy market solution ā as does most of Redditās history before that, with various places much worse than cth festering quite aggressively until the admins banned it, either for their own reasons ā like cth ā or external political reasons starting from jailbait to fatpeoplehate through to WatchPeopleDie.
Market solutions rarely work except for the rich and their lackeys, and the people who propose relying on them without any specific evidence should be regarded with suspicion. Iāve heard these libertarian spiels a thousand times before and, well, the only mistake Iāve ever made with libertarian ideology is not having enough contempt for it ā which I say having never respected it to begin with.
Oh, itās annoying is it? Thatās such a shame, that itās annoying. Iāll be sure to tell the minorities pushed out of the Nazi bar that preventative measures are possible but really should not be implemented because they would be annoying.
Please, give a stronger tell that you donāt give a shit for the people this more gravely impacts that you acknowledge how reversible this is and yet think that itās still too much of a hassle because itās annoying.
Relevant details: 1) the community was removed already, so Iāll discuss the implications if it wasnāt; 2) Iāll quote things out of order; 3) thereās a TL;DR: near the end.
By ālaissez faireā I do not mean the economic approach. I was using the expression more literally; roughly ālet them handle itā, or āyou let doā. This is clear by context, since the topic does not revolve around macroeconomicsĀ¹ (āmarketā this, āmarketā there). Context, use it.
The definition is not useless, as itās also clear that we were assigning different values to the expression. Words and expressions donāt have āactualā (intrinsic, well-defined and immutable) meanings, they change per person and sometimes per utteranceĀ². Learn to handle this.
That said: onwards Iāll call it OIAN (Only Intervene As Necessary), to avoid ambiguity, since you struggle with this sort of thing. The underlying reasoning stays the same no matter which words are used to convey it, be it laissez faire or OIAN or wug or waka-waka or gkfdshjs.
After a quick check in Wikipedia: why do you assume that I know random historical events from random countries across the globe? Iām not from USA. Stop trying to build a digital wall, e-Trump styleĀ³.
With that out of the way:
Yet another assumption: that āall the workā wonāt change from instance to instance, and that you know exactly what is supposed to be.
Under an OIAN approach, confronting a Nazi whoās āplaying alongā (for now) should be up to the community. If itās OIAN for the Nazi, itās OIAN for everyone else. Three things might happen:
Under an āitās up to the admins to tie the shoes of the baby usersā approach, the admins themselves should dictate the following:
This kind of āwe dictate this, we dictate thatā piles up over time, leading to abuse of a strict approach. Plenty examples of that from Redditāµ: user got a problem? āMODS, SOLVE IT FOR MEā. Mod got a problem? āADMINS, SOLVE IT FOR MEā. It leads into powermods, rogue admins, huge lists of rules that got broken all the time (each to address a new tiny issue) and opening even more grey areas for selective enforcement. And guess what, youāre empowering the admins in detriment of the users by that.
Emphasis mine - even if we disregard that this is a big āchrust meā (anecdotal evidence does not lead to meaningful conclusions - bring data or arguments, otherwise youāre just calling your reader gullible/stupid with this sort of anecdote), thereās a second issue here: it disregards that r/chapotraphouse was an already established community, full of people reinforcing each otherās behaviour. The TD @ shitjustworks however had literally one active user.
If we got an actual gathering of people in TD @ shitjustworks, then perhaps the dynamic would be similar. Perhaps. Iām not too eager to be an assumer.
I believe that I get what you mean by mentioning CTH - itās an example for the dynamic. I wonāt assume crap like āthan u think dat TD = CTH? lolā
If I had to take a guess, I think that the admins in Reddit didnāt really equate TD=CTH. They banned CTH to throw a bone to the right-wing users, because they still wanted those users in their platform; they just didnāt want that content due to the advertisers not liking it. That should not happen in the Lemmyverse, as those users themselves are undesirable.
OK, now youāre just distorting what I said, for the sake of yet other three fallacies: appeal to emotion, extended analogy, and strawman.
Iām not saying ādonāt kick out the Naziā. Iām saying āletting the users kick out the Nazi might be an optionā. Is the difference clear?
Think on the differences between the RL bar and a Lemmy instance, not just the similarities. Iāll list three for you:
And thereās a potential fourth difference that I brushed off in the other comment, but might as well address here: given that I give as many craps about USA internal politics as I do for the Mongolian ones - for the same reason - you gotta convince me that āTD supporter ā certainly a Naziā. Otherwise weāre dealing with a heuristic, not a confirmed factā¶.
Please give me a stronger tell that Iām not dealing with a context-illiterate and an assumer, whoās eager to churn out fallacies like there was no tomorrow, and eager to disingenuously (or worse, idiotically) assume words onto the othersā mouths, as you consistently did across your comment.
Anyway, answering your request: the impact of that ācommunityā with its sole active user posting crap there would be close to zero, even to the marginalised groups. Thereās a bigger issue in his username than the community itself, as that username would be seen outside the community. The actual concern would be if the user brought others like him there. That would only happen if nobody confronted him.
I hope that the above is already enough to show that Iām actually considering the impact on those people, when Iām saying that defederation and admin action might be unnecessary. Past that, your āprove that you arenāt guilty of siding with the antsā is irrelevant.
TL;DR:
The admins are not your parents. āADMINS, I CANāT CONFRONT THE NAZI BY MYSELFā is not support to marginalised groups, itās to act like a Reddit baby. A kid sees the ant in the kitchen and says āMUM! I SAW AN ANT! KILL IT!ā; the adult crushes it.
Also, stop dealing with marginalised groups as if they were āfragile little things, who canāt defend themselves unless big admin patronises themā. Thatās perverse incentive - youāre disempowering them. You might have āgood intentionsā doing so but perhaps you should pave Hell with them.
If you donāt want to be a burden in online communities, and a fucking waste of time for the other posters, then learn how to take context into account when interpreting what others say, and stop
Learn how to take context into account when interpreting what other people say, like a decent person would, and unlike a redditor.
Footnotes first:
Itās hilarious to imagine what kind of Marxist retains the magnitude liberal brainworms you display there. Would you like to tell me what sect you identify with? Iām just fascinated to find out, since your line of reasoning is completely against ML ideology. Are you one of Richard Wolffās spawn, maybe?
Iām sure you feel like a big boy but Iām familiar with the prescriptivism vs descriptivism debate, donāt worry
What the hell are you talking about here? The Gilded Age was a ~30 year period in America following the Civil War where the government went full classical liberal on its non-regulation of the economy, which produced all the famous robber barons like JP Morgan, from which we inherit the classic image of such figures, which went on to inform basically every political cartoon ever along with the mascot of Monopoly. It spawned or popularized immensely infamous practices such as ācompany townsā and āscripā, along with its own genre of literature (see Stephen Crane). Itās fine to not be educated on such matters but itās literally the most well-known era in American history other than the Great Depression or a war (back when Americaās domestic society was even culturally involved in wars).
N/A
Whoops, no citation, not even a name. Donāt give a shit. CTH moderated itself pretty well, the admins just hated it (and the neoliberal userbase of broader Reddit).
I never called TD people Nazis. This is an irrelevant tangent, what I was talking about was the nature of reactionary cesspits in general, not Nazis specifically. I donāt care what flavor of reactionary someone is, I donāt like any of them.
Anyway, most of your post is just listing informal fallacies and I have no interest in entertaining high-school level bullshit when itās tediously rendered, so Iāll just pick out a few more parts:
Just to clarify, my point of the laissez-faire comparison is not that using that term makes you a libertarian, but that it was interesting how it corresponded to the very libertarian-like ideology you expressed in your arguments. More on that later.
Itās ridiculous to dismiss cth out of hand as an āanecdoteā when it represents years of interaction on the website with what was, for a period of a bit more than a year, the largest extremist community on the website and easily, easily the most active. Treating it as a though it were a single data point equivalent to other extremist subreddits would in fact be warping the information available against what would be a reasonable representation of its magnitude. TD is the only stronger example due to how long it was active unless you want to get into the old Reddit Lore of fatpeoplehate or whatever.
This ā and how you talked about the Nazi bar issue before ā is a strange case of equivocation that seems almost deliberately obfuscatory. If I could crush the mosquito myself, I would, but because this is a forum and I am merely a normal user, I cannot and the community cannot ban them. The admins are the only people who have that power, so the best course of action (since a poll would be open to manipulation and those fuckers at beehaw wouldnāt even blink before doing so) is to have admins use their power with the consent of the governed and for the governed to become ungovernable if the admins act unilaterally against the popular consensus.
In a similar way, patrons running the Nazis out of the bar would be illegal on many levels. The owner is the only one who is legally protected in doing so because it is his property, so he can pick up his bat and say in so many words āLeave or I will consider you a trepasser and beat you to a pulpā where a patron would be easily charged with a crime for making such a threat. Now, could the patrons act illegally and take things in their own hands anyway? Sure, but just like the difference between real futball and a Fifa video game, breaking the law in reality is possible while breaking the rules in a āprogrammed spaceā generally isnāt. I could hypothetically strike a Nazi with a hammer, cops be damned. I cannot ban a Nazi here if the site does not give me permission, it literally just canāt be done.
I fully support arming minority communities in real life. There is no way to smuggle a banhammer to a non-mod.
Also, the idea that supporting minorities is ābabying themā is just asinine. Sitting by as they are attacked is not an example of being an ally, and forcing them to fend for themselves in the interest of what may as well be āprotecting their honor as warriorsā doesnāt do shit except consign them to miserable lives of fighting in their own defense no matter how successful they are. That is why, in civil society, the main thing social minorities typically fight for are legal protections that make it so they can avoid those fights or make them easier to win! Black people in general donāt seek to repeal the 1968 Civil Rights Act because the concept of a hate crime is āpatronizingā to their ability to ā¦ what? Go catch racial aggressors on their own? Fuck off with that āthe Democrats are the real racistsā shit. The Democrats are indeed real racists, but so are Republicans.
By the way:
Are you really going to tell me youāre not some kind of Hayekian? Between your general lines of reasoning, your sophomoric list of wikipedia fallacies, and turns of phrase like this, you really, really seem to be a libertarian.
If you genuinely fail to spot the difference between what I said and what someone who [ipsis ungulis] āretains the magnitude liberal brainwormsā would say, it means that youāre such a failure at basic reading comprehension that you can be safely ignored as noise. (Thereās a second idiocy in the same excerpt, but Iāll leave for the others to catch it.)