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

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

  • PowerfulTurtle@rammy.siteOPB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    82
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    Defederation is not censorship. It is refusing to listen to or platform things that you don’t agree with i.e. bigots or nazis. Lemmy.world has defederated exploding heads so it stands to reason that they wouldn’t want to listen to the same assholes spewing the same crap on rammy.site

    • MrSpArkle@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      31
      ·
      1 year ago

      Dude, defederation is a form of censorship, and there’s nothing wrong with censoring false and hateful views.

      • fkn@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        20
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        It literally isn’t censorship.

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

        • MrSpArkle@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          22
          ·
          1 year ago

          Dictionary says censorship is:

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

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

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

          • fkn@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            16
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

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

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

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

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

            • MrSpArkle@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              18
              ·
              1 year ago

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

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

              This isn’t the government.

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

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

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

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

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

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

              • fkn@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                10
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

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

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

                • MrSpArkle@lemmy.ca
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  5
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I’m having difficulty yes.

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

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

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

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

                  • fkn@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    4
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

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

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

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

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

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

              • CorruptBuddha@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                7
                ·
                1 year ago

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

                There’s so much cognitive dissonance in these threads.