After much lurking, it’s been brought to my attention that the Fediverse has gained a reputation for banning individuals who express support for Elon Musk’s rhetoric or who are affiliated with groups like KF. I speak from personal experience, having witnessed a particular individual (though I won’t name names, but I’m sure you can guess who) being banned from multiple instances simply because she was a KF user. She was diligent in adhering to each instance’s rules, ensuring that her actions were in strict compliance with the guidelines. This wasn’t a case of coincidence or an isolated incident, she took great care to follow the rules. Yet, despite her efforts, she was banned multiple times.
This leads to the question. Are there unwritten, unspoken rules within the Fediverse about aligning with certain groups or individuals, such as the one I just referenced? If so, I find myself quite curious about what specific protocol the average person is supposed to follow in order to avoid inadvertently crossing into these invisible boundaries. How can one navigate the Fediverse in a way that doesn’t unintentionally breach these seemingly arbitrary restrictions? Is there a set of guidelines that users can follow, or are we all just left to guess what is considered acceptable by the unseen and potentially very biased powers that govern these communities? This is an intriguing issue, since it’s one that seems to raise far more questions than it answers.
From my perspective, this situation seems to fit squarely within the realm of the logical fallacy known as “guilt by association.” The idea here is that because someone is connected to a certain group, they must share all the views and behaviors associated with that group. However, this kind of reasoning is, at best, deeply flawed. The group in question wasn’t created with the intent to promote hate speech, doxing, or any other harmful activity. In fact, it was founded with the purpose of defending free speech, a value that, unfortunately, many other platforms fail to fully embrace. The group’s mission was to create a space where open dialogue and expression could flourish without the kind of censorship or suppression often found on other platforms. It clearly states, right from the outset that it is not responsible for the actions of its members, and frankly, it shouldn’t be.
And yet, it’s important to note that other platforms, such as Discord, have been associated with perpetrators of mass violence, most notably in the case of the Highland Park shooting suspect and yet this connection seems to be largely overlooked. For some reason, I don’t see users of Discord being immediately banned or suspended simply because their accounts were linked to a server where someone with violent intentions was active. So why is there this stark contrast in enforcement? Why do some platforms face intense scrutiny and swift action, while others are seemingly given a free pass, despite their connection to far more serious issues?
This leads me to wonder. Why the double standard? Why does it seem that individuals associated with one platform are swiftly punished for their affiliations, while those linked to other platforms seem to avoid any real consequences? These are the questions I feel deserve some serious consideration. Reaching out as a concerned lemming.
The paradox of tolerance is a philosophical concept suggesting that if a society extends tolerance to those who are intolerant, it risks enabling the eventual dominance of intolerance; thereby undermining the very principle of tolerance.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
The first time I punched a Nazi was outside of an under 18 punk show.
Him and his buddy were overly nice, offering drugs/booze in the parking lot. A few minutes after approaching my group tho, one said “check this out” and showed me a fucking swastika tattoo.
Didn’t even think, quick jab to the nose without even really putting anything behind it.
It was instinct.
Doesn’t matter if someone is acting polite and following the rules to ingratiate into a group, when they show you that they’re not just intolerant but openly support violent groups, you have to show them that they’re not welcome.
Otherwise they’ll slowly take over the group.
On the internet you don’t have to punch a fascist in the face to convince them they’re not welcome, you can just ban them.
Then when they make a brand new account, you can them again.
Your reaction is completely understandable
Hats off to this troll for their effort though. They’re definitely amusing
It’s probably a good thing that, to the best of my knowledge, I don’t fit most definitions of a troll, now, isn’t it?
Upon hearing people’s assertion that they are experts in fascism, an intricate and multifaceted ideology, I find myself inclined to assume that they would, at the very least, undertake the intellectual task of articulating a comprehensive definition of what fascism entails, or at least perhaps delve into an exhaustive exploration of the foundational principles and essential pillars that constitute its ideological framework. To date, none have done so, and I’ve seen the bar being set so low that if you so as to say that what was perceived of Musk’s gesture was not what he intended, you’re branded as a fascist or even a Nazi apologist.
For years, members of the site created and operated by Joshua Conner Moon, 29, have congregated on what they call a “lighthearted discussion forum” to organize vicious harassment campaigns against transgender people, feminists and others they deem mockable. They gang up on victims and pool their personal details such as addresses and phone numbers in a practice called “doxxing,” spreading vile rumors and targeting workplaces, friends, families and homes. Another favorite tactic has been “swatting” — making false emergency calls to provoke an armed police response at a target’s home. Some people subjected to the group’s abuse have died by suicide.
https://www.wishtv.com/news/national/citing-imminent-danger-cloudflare-drops-hate-site-kiwi-farms/
You say that like other social media sites, such as Discord, haven’t been associated with bad behavior and mass violence. It’s not looking good for Discord. I think a ban on all Discord members is in order if you’re going to ban Kiwi Farms members without due process.
What part of “we don’t care for Discord either” don’t you understand?
Fine. Pretend we did care. Your point is still worthless for very obvious reasons: Discord has millions of users, and perhaps hundreds are pro-mass-violence. Most will never have any interaction with those that are. KF has maybe thousands of users (I’m not going to check) and roughly all of them are at least pro-evil, likely also pro-mass-violence given the opportunity.
Not all the members are. For example, the person whom I refer to, who got instance-banned for suggesting that perhaps Elon’s gesture didn’t have ill intent, and for being a KF member, is first and foremost a trans ally and has a trans (FTM) brother. She’s written many posts where she expresses her support for the trans community and that trans people are valid. He came out as transgender when she was eight, which would have made him thirteen at the time. She was actually the first to fully accept him for who he was, since she had always wanted a brother, and in her mind, this was the brother she had been waiting for since she was born. He’s always been the most special brother she could have, and that hasn’t changed, even with everything that’s happened. Alignment with a site doesn’t mean one endorses the actions of the more questionable members on the site. I can see that those who are against Kiwi Farms are from two demographics that see themselves at odds with it.
If you can do the mental gymnastics necessary for that super obvious Nazi salute to be considered anything other than a Nazi salute: you’re making excuses for Nazis. Whether intentional or not. Either you’re ignorant or you’re lying.
And I maintain that the capacity to truly articulate one’s own intentions resides solely with the individual, and this principle is no less applicable to Musk. We are not the proxy of his mind, and only he, the bearer of his thoughts, is able to tell us what his intentions are or were. It may seem alluring to some people to project interpretations onto his actions, particularly in light of his often politically fraught and somewhat inept conduct, any presumption that we can definitively comprehend his underlying motivations remain speculative at best. Those who have distanced themselves from him are, more often than not, reacting not to his genuine intent, but rather to their own constructed perceptions of him though their response, inherently subjective, is entirely within their purview. Let’s not forget that Elon Musk’s daughter famously ended up proving herself wrong about him.
It is so fascinating to see a sea lion out in the wild.
It’s solid trolling, I’ll acknowledge that they’re good at what they do
Appealing to due process isn’t sealioning. Imagine if a stranger approached you on the street and made sweeping accusations about someone in your neighborhood, presenting ‘evidence’ that’s open to interpretation. Wouldn’t it be normal for those involved to question the validity of those claims? It feels like an attack rooted in bias even if that’s not the intent. If we applied the logic behind ‘sealioning’ accusations to every situation, we wouldn’t have courts or fact-checkers. Imagine if Elon Musk simply responded to criticism in his Community Notes program by dismissing everyone with, “Oh, you silly sealioners, you don’t know the full story”.
That’s so many unnecessary words when you could just say that you’re a nazi apologist and save us all the fucking around
If you’re referring to appealing to due process in regards to Musk’s gesture, let’s not forget that his own daughter famously proved herself wrong about him.
Also, some people suffer from a condition known as hypergraphia. I assume you know that the Fediverse does not take kindly to ableism or bigotry.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
What was so funny about my reply?
Something I have learned from Anarchists is how reactionaries take over political and non-political spaces. A few arrive and they adhere to all the rules but push bounderies where they can to see whats acceptable. Eventually it reaches a point where that space has a discussion publicly by users or privately by mods on what to do about this person or group. They aren’t technically breaking any rules so it feels wrong to remove them but they have upset enough people to get to this point that it feels SOMETHING must be done. If this user gets banned at most the space gets some wreckers and trolls that are annoying but the precedent has been set so they will get removed too. However if this person is not banned it means that space is recognized as safe for people like them. Others follow and the space becomes hostile to some of its original userbase until it becames a reactionary cesspit. It doesn’t always end up there, but it is better not to tolerate intolerance when it is easy to spot.
It’s much older than the internet…
Normally it’s done over weeks/months, but A Bronx Tale sped up the process for a five minute part of the movie:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DLji-iHgEb0
It’s exploiting “sunk cost fallacy” you avoid small indiscretions and count on basic human decency, but by the time the offensive group feels they have control, they take the mask off.
Then you have to deal with them, or let them have the place and hope they don’t completely destroy it.
I don’t know what kiwi farm is but free speech is not an inherent right you have. No one that runs or owns anything owes you that. Right to expression is a government thing. If you came to my house and said anything I didn’t like, I have zero obligation to let you continue. In fact I could kick you out for saying things I did like. And I could choose to not have someone else leave for saying the same thing.
The good news is that you can start your own federation and allow/disallow whatever you choose.
