@ernest how do I report a Magazin on kbin.social ? There is a usere called “ps” who is posting to his own “antiwoke” Magazin on kbin.social. Please remove this and dont give them a chance to etablish them self on kbin.social. When I report his stuff it will go to him because he is the moderator of the magazin? Seems like a problem. Screenshot of the “antiwoke” Magazin /sub on kbin.social. 4 Headlines are visible, 2 exampels: “Time to reject the extrem trans lobby harming our society” “How to end wokeness” #Moderation #kbin #kbin.social 📎
edit: dont feed the troll, im shure ernest will delet them all when he sees this. report and move on.
Edit 2 : Ernest responded:
“I just need a little more time. There will likely be a technical break announced tomorrow or the day after tomorrow. Along with the migration to new servers, we will be introducing new moderation tools that I am currently working on and testing (I had it planned for a bit later in my roadmap). Then, I will address your reports and handle them very seriously. I try my best to delete sensitive content, but with the current workload and ongoing relocation, it takes a lot of time. I am being extra cautious now. The regulations are quite general, and I would like to refine them together with you and do everything properly. For now, please make use of the option to block the magazine/author.”
❤
I agree with others that you just gave that ps guy what they wanted: attention. You should’ve messaged ernest directly to ask him for better report tools.
Meanwhile, go to beehaw if you need better protection from people like him.
When I report his stuff it will go to him because he is the moderator of the magazin[e]?
When someone reported one of my posts (they thought it was spam) in my magazine I got a notification in my magazine panel, yes. No alert telling me there was a notification, but a notification.
Am unsure if admin likewise get a ping but almost certain they would be too busy to notice if they did.
Why do you care? Is kbin.social not a free speech platform? If not, I’ll find somewhere else to go.
I don’t even agree with these folks, but if people are going to start raising a big stink because people are saying things they don’t like, I’m out.
I don’t even agree with these folks> if you sit at a table with 7 nazi that table contain 8 nazi
I may disagree with what you have to say, but I’ll fight to the death to defend your right to say it.
until it’s hate speech. then you shouldn’t have the right to say it. because that makes you a dick-head who has broken the social contract.
There’s free speech in good faith, and the one in the bad. But that’s not even about that. If someone’s speech is basically “all trans people are a pedophiles and belong on the cross in defence of good christian values” (not a direct quote, just a representation) it’s not free speech. It’s hate speech and that kind of speech is not protected. Free speech is meant to protect voicing opinions. Thinking some people are not deserving of worthy living is not an opinion.
Buh bye
this entire thread is such a massive waste of time & an embarassing dogpile of pessimistic blanket assumptions.
“X will inevitably turn into Y if we don’t do something now!”
or maybe facilitating the existence of two fediverses on opposite, equally-corrupt ends of the political spectrum will only lead to the maximum possible amount of hate in the end (from both sides). sounds fun!
pessimism versus optimism. the latter exposes us to more risk (someone could be a shit, racist person down to their very core), but i think the potential reward is better for giving people the benefit of the doubt that they just don’t understand. that’s just me though. feel free to disagree. i won’t think you’re rotten for doing so.
in general, people don’t just wake up and decide to change their opinion on X out of nowhere. and telling someone to think something is useless… at best.
people need to be surrounded by different people just living their lives in order to open their own eyes and form their own opinions. otherwise everything they see on TV/FB/etc is true in their minds.
“nipping this in the bud” early just prevents self-discovery that can lead to less racism/hate existing in the grand scheme of things.
not all people who have a bad/hateful opinion are bad/evil/right-wing. i reckon it’s better for all of us if these people gain passive/active exposure to those they’re biased against and realize the media is wrong, rather than reinforce that opinion by hiding away in this thread, spending countless hours peering into our glass ball and seeing the future that will 100% without a doubt inevitably come to pass (because all far right ppl are exactly the same and deeply motivated by hate on a daily basis and are not only unwilling to change but unable!)
we need more cross-political-spectrum crossover in the world. not less. if you/someone doesnt have the mental energy to interact with or see certain people, that’s totally fine. mental heath matters. block/mute & go about your day. but i think letting everyone else continue to interact positively/neutrally in the meantime is desirable. some people aren’t bothered by certain things and can discuss them with “the other side” to positive effect. let them do so?
interacting with somebody who has differing/bad opinions shouldn’t be seen as support for those opinions, though i think sometimes it’s seen that way.
walls are bad when they’re between different types of people, but they’re desirable when they’re protecting you from the elements or providing privacy. live within your own walls when you need to, for your own well-being/sanity. but we shouldn’t encourage walls to be built that keep out hundreds of good people just because there’s a handful of bad apples in the bunch. that’s pessimistic as hell & sounds like something straight from a certain US Presidential campaign trail.
if the goal of an instance is just to co-exist exclusively with like-minded people, that’s fine i guess, but if the goal is to encourage diversity, personal/societal growth, creativity, then defederating with anyone the moment they have a different/uninformed opinion is a bit bonkers.
not every hateful sentence (from the reader’s perspective) stems from a hateful thought. nobody can read minds.
sometimes the hate is assumed because of our own biases (which is kinda ironic).
sometimes it’s just an uninformed or ignorant thought (until everyone goes and proves them “right” by fighting ignorance with fire).
if everyone just engaged with others as their mental/emotional capacity permitted without expecting the same from others, we’d be better off in my opinion. we don’t need instance god-admins to protect us.
<not proofread at all. sent from my Nintendo Wii>
Can’t you just block users and communities you don’t want to read from?
It’s not about political disagreement though, it’s about the fundamental rights of people to exist.
The defederation questions are not over disagreements on “how much should we pay in taxes”, it’s “should this group of people be allowed to publicly exist”.
Is it “healthy political discourse” to allow antisemitic propaganda in furtherance of fascism? I’ve noticed the vast majority of “free speech absolutists” belong to groups that are not currently being targeted by hate groups.
who decides what is hate speech? and why must it always be handled for the individuals by the authorities? sometimes i think people post harmful things because they’re confused/scared/ignorant. in fact, i’d venture to guess that’s what happens a majority of the time. in these cases, their mind isn’t set in stone, making it a prime time for someone to step in and engage in a hopefully-fruitful conversation with said person. even if they dont change their mind, they just had +1 neutral/pleasant conversation with someone they would normally write off (thanks to mainstream media) as unreasonable/aggressive/whatever.
stopping these engagements from happening is worth the risk that a truly bad apple exists in the public eye (before being banned or whatever), because these seemingly inconsequential interactions can lead to a better social ecosystem that is more self-sustaining. one that balances itself out from within, by individuals’ efforts, not the efforts of admins. admins should focus on keeping obviously illegal activity at a minimum, not on deciding what is morally good or bad. individuals have the block/mute button for that?
it’s impossible to erect walls, virtual or physical, that keep only bad actors at bay. inevitably, vulnerable individuals/people will find themselves trapped on the wrong side of enemy lines. in real life, that’s much scarier than online. defederating from one’s neighborhood isn’t a thing. online networks can indirectly (maybe??) help make those neighborhoods better by leading by example and providing evidence that everyone can get along and benefits from doing so. people in certain parts of the world will never physically interact with X or Y kind of people. the internet is people’s only exposure to certain cultures and ideas. might as well help make that exposure good instead of hoping whatever exposure they get elsewhere is positive.
i think the internet can be an incredibly powerful force for changing minds for the better (which can create a safer IRL space for all, indirectly), but that doesnt happen if zero discussion ever happens, even if that means including some differing/bad voices at times.
we aren’t fully aware of the powerful tool in our hands, especially when outside the grasp of centralized capitalist platforms. now’s the time to reimagine social media and not play by some megacorp’s growth-at-all-costs rules. hate fuels algorithms. hate keeps their social media platforms alive & monetized. we’ve been conditioned to believe hate must always beget hate… because it’s profitable. online, everyone is weirdly guilty until proven innocent. it’s easier to believe that’s true when people aren’t in front of you too. they’re just NPCs with funny names & avatars, not complex humans that have their share of good & bad days.
just because something is said, or discussed, doesn’t make it true or dangerous. the human mind is cool because it can can basically create VMs and toy around with ideas without risking damage to the rest of the mind. devil’s advocates aren’t devils when they take off their cosplay horns.
“free speech” to me isn’t being able to harass or incite violence. it means being free to say & think things without always meaning them. or being allowed to be wrong/uninformed. freedom of speech depends heavily on context, and i think that’s partially why encouraging free speech online is so hard (compared to with friends or in offline classrooms), but it’s worth attempting (i think). IRL, it’s far easier to see when someone is genuinely curious, joking, aggressive, confused, etc.
the alternative is for any and all controversial discussions to only happen behind closed doors, online or offline. but that seems likely to improve nothing from where it stands today.
it’s easy to de-federate from instances with content deemed hateful to some (yes, i worded that carefully), but that means that certain individuals’ notions of those other people will never be challenged. this protects one’s fediverse but shifts the conflict IRL potentially. not everyone can just “turn off” the ignorant people around them.
do you know how hard it would be for a far right person to hate the queer community (for example) if they found themselves surrounded by non-combative, creative, talented, similar (in other ways lol) people? i think (i’m only guessing) that a similar thing happened back in the day with tattoos/piercings. seeing normal (& exceptional) people regularly that look a certain way can absolutely erode preconceived notions over time, like water drops carving the Grand Canyon.
that is what changes minds. seeing other people, kinda like you, also kinda unlike you, living life and being cool.
i think wodespread defederation ensures all negative preconceived notions largely stay in tact. federating and handling issues on a case-by-case basis (or letting individuals handle their own disagreements, gasp!) just seems like a better strategy to me. but i could very well he wrong. i have zero relevant credentials to speak on any of this.
i guess i just personally believe individual humans can & should look after themselves, their friends, and their communities without the need for overprotection by centralized powers — most of the time.
maybe i went off topic there a bit. sorry! this entire discussion fascinates me and frustrates me to no end. i truly think we could miss out on an opportunity to create a better Internet/network based on how this is all handled.
First of all, thanks for engaging in a thoughtful way. I’m going to try to respond to all your questions, apologies if I inadvertently group a few.
who decides what is hate speech?
Depends on the context. Often an individually community determines what falls into that category for them, but for example the UN defines it as “offensive discourse targeting a group or an individual based on inherent characteristics (such as race, religion or gender) and that may threaten social peace.” source
and why must it always be handled for the individuals by the authorities?
It’s definitely not always handled for individuals by authorities. In case of private individuals (e.g. lemmy instance owners), they may simply not want to pay for / engage with that content. In case of public individuals (e.g. elected representatives), they have a duty to act on behalf of their constituents to enact protections to allow everyone to safely exist in society.
sometimes i think people post harmful things because they’re confused/scared/ignorant. in fact, i’d venture to guess that’s what happens a majority of the time. in these cases, their mind isn’t set in stone, making it a prime time for someone to step in and engage in a hopefully-fruitful conversation with said person. even if they dont change their mind, they just had +1 neutral/pleasant conversation with someone they would normally write off (thanks to mainstream media) as unreasonable/aggressive/whatever.
That probably represents some cases, but it is not the responsibility of impacted communities to deprogram hateful people. People change because of real relationships, built over real shared values, not over shitposting on the internet.
stopping these engagements from happening is worth the risk that a truly bad apple exists in the public eye (before being banned or whatever), because these seemingly inconsequential interactions can lead to a better social ecosystem that is more self-sustaining. one that balances itself out from within, by individuals’ efforts, not the efforts of admins.
“Can lead to a better social ecosystem” is doing a LOT of heavy lifting here. I think for the majority of people, the infinitesimal chance of maybe having a positive change is far outweighed by the negative consequenses of allowing unfettered harassment and abuse.
admins should focus on keeping obviously illegal activity at a minimum, not on deciding what is morally good or bad. individuals have the block/mute button for that?
Admins should focus on whatever they want, they are the ones managing the space. The inconvenience to you is having to visit another website, the inconvenience to users targeted by this harassement is a lot more than that.
it’s impossible to erect walls, virtual or physical, that keep only bad actors at bay. inevitably, vulnerable individuals/people will find themselves trapped on the wrong side of enemy lines.
People make choices. If you find yourself on the wrong side, time to switch sides. If you don’t, then maybe you don’t actually believe you’re on the wrong side.
in real life, that’s much scarier than online. defederating from one’s neighborhood isn’t a thing. online networks can indirectly (maybe??) help make those neighborhoods better by leading by example and providing evidence that everyone can get along and benefits from doing so. people in certain parts of the world will never physically interact with X or Y kind of people. the internet is people’s only exposure to certain cultures and ideas. might as well help make that exposure good instead of hoping whatever exposure they get elsewhere is positive. i think the internet can be an incredibly powerful force for changing minds for the better (which can create a safer IRL space for all, indirectly), but that doesnt happen if zero discussion ever happens, even if that means including some differing/bad voices at times.
A lot of people rely on their internet communities to be safe for exactly that reason. Can’t put up a pride flag on your apartment because last time you got a brick through your window? At least you can be safe to be yourself in the online communities you chose. Nobody is stopping folks from interacting with online communities, you just have to agree to follow the community rules.
we aren’t fully aware of the powerful tool in our hands, especially when outside the grasp of centralized capitalist platforms. now’s the time to reimagine social media and not play by some megacorp’s growth-at-all-costs rules. hate fuels algorithms. hate keeps their social media platforms alive & monetized. we’ve been conditioned to believe hate must always beget hate… because it’s profitable.
Ironically defederation is the biggest boon we’ve been given. No longer subject to “engagement” based algorithms, communities are free to decide what they want to engage with. Defederation is not hate.
online, everyone is weirdly guilty until proven innocent. it’s easier to believe that’s true when people aren’t in front of you too. they’re just NPCs with funny names & avatars, not complex humans that have their share of good & bad days.
Spend any time on IRL social networks (e.g. LinkedIn, Facebook, Instagram, etc), and you’ll see that people don’t give a shit even when presented with real names and faces.
just because something is said, or discussed, doesn’t make it true or dangerous. the human mind is cool because it can can basically create VMs and toy around with ideas without risking damage to the rest of the mind. devil’s advocates aren’t devils when they take off their cosplay horns.
Devil’s advocacy is only useful when used to strengthen arguments, otherwise it’s just an excuse for people to hold a position without taking responsibility for it.
“free speech” to me isn’t being able to harass or incite violence. it means being free to say & think things without always meaning them. or being allowed to be wrong/uninformed. freedom of speech depends heavily on context, and i think that’s partially why encouraging free speech online is so hard (compared to with friends or in offline classrooms), but it’s worth attempting (i think). IRL, it’s far easier to see when someone is genuinely curious, joking, aggressive, confused, etc.
Everyone is free to say what they want, however, they are not free from the consequences. This is true of all interactions, IRL or online. People vomiting out every thought in their head instead of carefully considering is part of what leads to so much conflict.
the alternative is for any and all controversial discussions to only happen behind closed doors, online or offline. but that seems likely to improve nothing from where it stands today.
Controversial discussions can happen wherever people want to support them, and under the rules they set.
it’s easy to de-federate from instances with content deemed hateful to some (yes, i worded that carefully), but that means that certain individuals’ notions of those other people will never be challenged. this protects one’s fediverse but shifts the conflict IRL potentially. not everyone can just “turn off” the ignorant people around them.
The conflict is already there IRL. It is the responsibility of the individual to learn and grow, not for communities to proselytize.
do you know how hard it would be for a far right person to hate the queer community (for example) if they found themselves surrounded by non-combative, creative, talented, similar (in other ways lol) people? i think (i’m only guessing) that a similar thing happened back in the day with tattoos/piercings. seeing normal (& exceptional) people regularly that look a certain way can absolutely erode preconceived notions over time, like water drops carving the Grand Canyon. that is what changes minds. seeing other people, kinda like you, also kinda unlike you, living life and being cool.
Hateful people self isolate by choice, only interacting to attack those communities. Queer people are not welcome in their churches, bars, neighborhoods, social circles, etc.
i think wodespread defederation ensures all negative preconceived notions largely stay in tact. federating and handling issues on a case-by-case basis (or letting individuals handle their own disagreements, gasp!) just seems like a better strategy to me. but i could very well he wrong. i have zero relevant credentials to speak on any of this.
If you look at any of the truely “open” communities, they are essentially cesspools of hate and violence. Yeah people can clean dog shit off their own lawns, but much better if the shit wasn’t there in the first place.
i guess i just personally believe individual humans can & should look after themselves, their friends, and their communities without the need for overprotection by centralized powers — most of the time.
Disagree. You even disagree with yourself in your own definition. What is the responsibility of an individual who looks after themselves, their friends, and their communities? Maybe taking action to protect those friends and communities, instead of forcing them to protect themselves?
maybe i went off topic there a bit. sorry! this entire discussion fascinates me and frustrates me to no end. i truly think we could miss out on an opportunity to create a better Internet/network based on how this is all handled.
The internet is people, it’s not some mystical new social order. I want the fuckheads to stay away from me, just like IRL.
Well said.
Is there a way to block seeing any comments or posts from exploding heads?
You can block domains if you click on the domain next to the post, go to the sidebar and block it like a magazine
That hasn’t been functioning for me, I’ve had to go to each magazine individually to block them.
If I click the button on the instance it doesn’t do anything, I still see the posts in my feed. I’ve tried on a few of the non-english instances (since I don’t know other languages).
The mostly “reduced” posts in this thread open up a good time to discuss the benefits of federation in regards to removing problem users. Can we federate banlists, such that if, for example, you’re banned from kbin.social for creating a community for hate speech, it also bans you from likeminded instances automatically?
Would be nice to form “zine alliances” to share the burden a little bit. Anyone who posts “end wokeness” stuff doesn’t need to exist on any platform.
If there’s more people here like 10A it would be great if you could speak up so I could keep building my block list
I’ve got a pretty good idea of what the “A” in “10A” stands for.
Amendment, if you must know.
You seem like the type of person who drives weirdly slow past preschools. It’s always you types of fuckers projecting their shit onto people they want excuses to hate.
Trans people are pedos? Find me 10 articles of incidents of a trans person getting arrested for pedophilia in the last year.
I bet I can find 10 articles of priests and Christians raping kids in the past fucking month.
Quit projecting, get off the internet, look inward, and shut your fucking mouth.
Please look up the facts. Doctors don’t “cut off sex organs” or do ANY other physical changes to trans children.
https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/crime/article263759218.html
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/transgender-sex-offender-who-attacked-29765751
https://twitter.com/OliLondonTV/status/1651861965235539969?lang=en
There you go, now hit me with the priests of the past month.
Daily Mail
Fox News
NY Post
…And a Twitter account that doesn’t link to a credible news source.Would you like to try again without the sources that continually fail fact checks and exhibit a far right bias?
How predictable. Do you have any actual arguments beyond smearing the sources? Don’t believe your lying eyes, right? Can you point to any factual inaccuracies in the articles linked or does your reasoning end at “they report inconvenient facts that don’t show up on the NYT/CNN/MSNBC/BBC front pages so they must be biased”.
And here’s the source for the tweet. Didn’t take a whole lot of effort to find (not that you even bothered ofc): https://www.cronicaviva.com.pe/pnp-arresta-a-sujeto-vestido-de-alumna-en-colegio-de-mujeres-en-huancayo-videos/
I don’t have to; you have to provide good sources to back up your claim. If I say that god exists, and then claim that the bible proves is, well, I’m not proving my point because I haven’t yet given any solid evidence to my claims. This is how a debate works when your arguing like a rational adult.
And, for the record, CNN/NYT/et al. are also biased, but they’re (usually) more factually based. Bias is not the same as factually incorrect; bias is reflected in which stories you choose to report, and what language you use in reporting. And example of a source that would be both unbiased and highly factual would be Reuters News Service, or the Christian Science Monitor. Similarly, Jabocin is strongly left-biased, but also highly factual.
Three of the sources you cited are not credible because they continually play fast and loose with facts and don’t bother verifying information. One of them was unsourced entirely, and the backup you provide is not in English–or based in the US–which makes determining the veracity difficult.
In short, you aren’t acting in good faith.
10 assholes?
10xAdolf
Sheesh, I know who that is already! I had them blocked ages ago. What a tool.
It’s kind of impressive that that already have -2000 rep
I just took a peek at that user’s profile. Saw what magazines they moderate. Not surprised we have a different point of view.
Ok you got me there.
I think you’re a malevolent, hateful, backwards bigot who shouldn’t be welcome here… but I also genuinely appreciate the comedy in how you’ve been handling any references to your presence on m/FoxNews.
Fuck you, for sure, but also well done.
Aww, shucks, that’s the nicest thing anyone’s said to me all day!
The more people who will get on the platform the easier it will be to shut the intolerant and bullshitters out.
The frothing hysteria over “wokeness” (ie treating your fellow humans with respect) is just a smokescreen by the oil industry, which hopes it will take some pressure off it for, you know, slowly killing us all with global warming. You do know this, don’t you?
I went through a young Republican phase, too. Then I realized that the party had nothing to offer ordinary people but contempt and cynical manipulation. Like telling people that they can be good Christians by doing the exact opposite of what Christ did. Like pitting Americans against each other for their differences. Like convincing people that the former president, a monster by any objective standard, is this country’s savior when it’s clear that he’s just shaking the nation for loose change.
It’s called “wokeness” because we finally opened our eyes, saw what was happening all around us, and decided to do something about it. You can either recognize the evil in this world, or become another oblivious victim of it.
This is a literal conspiracy theory.
It’s not really. There is millions visibly spent on lobbying efforts against climate change, and invisibly stockholders invested in energy are board members of media companies. For example Jack Cockwell has over a billion dollars in Brookfield hedge fund, and that fund has been increasing it’s holdings in energy for the last decade. There’s some BCE board member that has millions of dollars in Wajax stocks (industrial equipment manufacturer), about half his net worth.
If you talk about industries with influence on one another from the perspective of ownership, you’ll find it’s all very incestuous as the richest people will diversify.
Weirdly, the people involved in Fox News only seem to own stock in FOX, but cash contributions to those people aren’t shown in the market data I’m looking at. Maybe I’m not looking in the right places, but I’m not a finance person.And quite a creative one at that.
Every downvote is a sweet, sweet tear trickling down from the chubby cheek of an incel sociopath who was pre-emptively blocked. Delicious! Your agony sustains me!
The entire point about federation is that these issues largely solve themselves.
Don’t like the community…block it.
Instance is going to shit…defederate it.
The people on the anti-woke community can continue screaming into their echo chamber and no one who doesn’t want to has to listen to it without resorting to censorship and banning. Let assholes be assholes in their own instance and the rest of us can just close our sound-proof windows and not have to listen to them.
I mean I don’t know or even care to censur on that level but thanks for the heads up so I can block. Im thinking it would be nice to have a recommened block magazine
It’s not censorship, it’s self-defence.
Yeah, I really hope that shit gets nipped in the bud.
Now I can confirm, the block button works :D
deleted by creator
Oh boy, an enlightened centrist!
If you cannot differentiate between people actively stepping up to a literal anti-human propaganda from people posting it, perhaps you should fuck off, too.
Oh boy, here we go with the enlightened centrists label. Disagree with somethings on the left and right and now you’re also a huge problem. Bravo
You are, because the guy we are talking about literally chose the appeasement rhetoric. And that’s pretty enlightement centrist-y.
Both sides are equally bad bullshit.
This you?
get fucked. politics shapes our lives, if you hate it so much don’t use the fucking internet.
As a non-american, I find americans to be very intense when it comes to politics. I just hope that we don’t start importing their culture war bullshit into our country.
A single shitposter, with only downvoted posts. without attention they would have stopped posting, but now it has attention.
While the content is stupid and vile, is he breaking any rules?
Respectful Behavior
We expect all users to treat each other with respect and kindness. Harassment, hate speech, or any other form of harmful behavior will not be tolerated. We reserve the right to remove any content or user that violates these guidelines.
Isn’t this standard for anywhere that doesn’t want to end up as T_D or 4chan?
The posts itself are not rulebreaking, but i could be wrong.
But the reply here is breaking the rules
https://kbin.social/m/antiwoke/t/101045/Time-to-reject-the-extreme-trans-lobby-harming-our-societyThat’s mostly the problem with those posts, while not rule breaking, they are hate magnets.
If the moderator refuses to properly moderate the comments this would be a proper reason for a ban.
Incidentally the person breaking the rules is making the biggest stir in this thread about not banning people.
Guy literally is advocating beating people to death as a good Christian moral while also trying to advocate he shouldn’t be banned for it.
No, I did not advocate for beating people to death, and I would never advocate for that. Try reading the whole post and not taking a few words out of context.
And these are the people who would lecture about prejudice… Nothing but prejudicial bad faith in this entire thread.
Being a filthy reactionary, I was really hoping that the fediverse could become something like the reddit of 10 years ago, but it seems like the dyed-in-the-wool redditors couldn’t help but bring their intolerance with them.
Thank you for actually bothering to stand your ground. God bless.
The whole post was even more disgusting. Others are welcome to read it, Static linked it, but I stand by what I said.
If the devil did exist, he resides in your church, raising monsters.
What a fuckin psychopath.
they are hate magnets.
And they were posted with the intent to be so. That suffices in my opinion. It’s not the lone post itself, but the context of the magazine as a whole.
If the moderator refuses to properly moderate the comments
Yes, the mod of antiwoke is about to exercise proper judgement
I mean, one of those examples is
“Time to reject the extrem trans lobby harming our society”
That is a global rule violation on most sites. Hate speech.
Genuinely curious what is hateful about that? Rejecting something does not equal hate or I guess I need to file a claim against universities and friends who rejected me.
Let me take one excerpt from that thread and I want you to ask that again
Homosexuals were regularly taken outside and beaten to a pulp, so it was extremely rare for anyone to think such behavior was acceptable.
And to summarize: He’s basically advocating “good Christian morals” as being transphobic.
But also to the original post: It is wording the advocates for trans people as being extremists who are harming our society.
“extreme trans lobby” is a conspiratorial misrepresentation of a group of people who would just like to live their lives.
Source?
Did they claim that you were harming society?
I disagree: better to kill the evil in its infancy, rather than let it spread and hope it goes away by its own.
Streisand effect for sure. There seems to be run of these types of posts in the fediverse lately. People don’t seem to realize that sometimes they’re better off letting these situations take their natural course (and die), and not intervene unless it grows beyond manageability.
Wisdom ^
The rules of the internet remains unchanged, regardless of platform. Do not feed the trolls.
You are replying to the troll yourself lol
Sometimes the mobile U/I wins, but I decided to let it stand regardless of replying to the wrong comment. Maybe the troll learns something, though I doubt it.
So you advocate your own posting taking its natural course and dying off? I can think of a way you can hurry up this process.
Dude, he’s mocking you all and you don’t even get it. The more you scream the more attention you’re bringning to his magazine.
You people are hopless.
Dude, he’s mocking you all and you don’t even get it. The more you scream the more attention you’re bringning to his magazine.
Other people are not as stupid as you think. But the question between not giving it attention to challenge it and possibly giving it food to fester or not giving it attention and also not challenging it is not easily answered. Looking at the repulsive backlash, drawing attention to it was the right choice. Sure, some more people might flock there, but the vast majority strongly disapproves and now knows that kbin.social (unsurprisingly) has awful people on it as well.
Respectfully, I disagree. If you are running a bar and a nazi comes in with all their nazi periphranalia and orders a drink and behaves. You still kick them out. Because if you don’t the next time they will bring all their nazi friends and it will be much harder to kick them out and then your other patrons stop showing up because of all the nazis around and now you are running a nazi bar.
Ban hate trolls. Ban them immediately. Because if that content festers on the site it will be much harder to ban later.
and not intervene unless it grows beyond manageability.
I’d rather nip it in the bud. You’re just letting things fester.
I don’t disagree with the sentiment, but it will become impossible to accomplish, practically speaking, as the fediverse grows. There’s only so much that can be done with volunteers, and it’s not like armies of paid staffers work much better (as we’ve seen the major tech corps try to do).
There is a sociological aspect to this, numerous studies have confirmed the effects of highlighting bad actors. There’s a copycat effect (as studies on mass shootings show) as well as what we call the Streisand effect. Both inadvertently encourage others to perpetuate the behaviour rather than serving to limit it.
Allowing bad actors to advertise themselves is highlighting them. Banning them and deleting their communities is the opposite of highlighting them.
Exactly. We agree? Thats what I said/mean. This post doesn’t ban them, it’s inadvertently advertising their content. There have been several post like this recently. While they may mean well they likely have the opposite effect.
So your solution is to just give up and let hate fester? When has appeasement ever worked?
Not at all. I think you’re conflating what I said with someone else. I’m only suggested we don’t inadvertently promote this content by creating a front-page post denouncing it.
The point about it being impossible to accomplish is about perfection. It’s a wack-a-mole game. Since this content and people will always be there until found, it’s better to not give them more of an audience.
No site will ever perfectly remove objectionable content. It’s one reason why the upvote downvote system is so valuable for a site like this.
I think the problem is that at the moment, the system is new enough that there’s no way to get this sort of content removed. Hence this front page post. It’s not about calling attention to the magazine, it’s about calling attention to the entire issue…
You can’t avoid hate and hope it recedes. You have to take it directly head on and stomp it out immediately.
If they decide to move elsewhere, then follow them there and continue rooting them out.
Just “letting people decide” is useless and will only enable them to continue.
Agreed, I think you’re still conflating things I never said. Nothing was in the “let the people decide” vein.
Thats why I think it’s better to silently remove them rather then making posts saying “look at this bad guy right there”.
Where does this sentiment come from? Reddit for the most part already does this. Twitter before Elon showed up did this. Most modern sites already do this
The only place I can think of where this is commonplace is 4chan, because they don’t moderate.
Yes, highlighting bad actors over a course of time can be problematic. But the point in this case is the point out that we don’t have the tools to deal with said bad actor. The tools that other sites have. It’s not being said in vain, the goal is to make aware that something needs to be done so that people don’t even see the bad actor to bring attention to them.
There is a purpose to the current efforts. I think everyone understands that constantly bringing attention to them will do no good, but the goal here is to bring attention to tools that are needed, so that it doesn’t happen again, or at the very least to this extent.
You’d might be conflating my comment with someone else? I’m not against moderating. I just think it’s a bad idea to blast these communities or users onto the front page when they’re found.
No example has been able to squash out bad actors and unwanted content completely. That’s the impossible task I’m referring to. Neither volunteers, nor paid staff have accomplished this for any site. In all your example there are still areas flying under the radar.
As such, it’s better to not inadvertently fan the flames when you find the fire, don’t make their soapbox bigger. Instead put it out quietly so it doesn’t harm anyone else.
Examples are good when trying to point out a problem actually exists and not have certain people trying to tone it down and make it not seem like as big a problem as it is, despite even the devs acknowledging there’s a problem.
The final point is more tools are being worked on, the thread did do something, so trying to argue a point that would basically have prevented it just seems…poor taste.
Everything you’re talking is perception, friend. You chose to take my comment that way. The dev tools were being worked on long before this post.
As I said before, I’m not making this up, the phenomenon is studied and the effect is proven.
The biggest thing im afraid of happening to Kbin/the lemmyverse is that it will end up like Ruqqus, especially now that it seems to be swamped with trolls.
I expect that instances will get more locked down, perhaps those of us on an instance can vouch for new users who might join, but I can’t see how a volunteer admin could police a million user instance. I used to run a 10k user discussion site and while that wasn’t a fulltime job it was still a giant pain in the ass at times. If we can get in a steady state where an instance has a core of active posters and lurkers then that seems better than infinite growth.
That then surely leads to federated instances that each represent the tolerances of their admin(s) and they presumably federate or not with other instances with similar sensibilities.
In the end the nazis will get their nazi instance and federate with likeminded types - they get defederated everywhere else and wont really be a problem (maybe for the FBI). (Though I’m not certain that all internet nazis truly are, i think there a group of trolls that get their kicks from being controversial and will get no joy by being surrounded by people who accept them)
The problems are going to be in the gray areas. For example, the argument that trans people don’t deserve to exist… I find that abhorrent, but there are people who will happily say that on TV, and there are CEOs of $44B social networks that appear to agree. Some instances will tolerate that on the grounds of free speech and others will not, then the admins are left trying to decide what’s grounds for defederation.
However in my limited experience, the thing that kills projects like this is too much navel gazing. There will always be some trolling and noise, but if the remaining users expend all their energy talking about it then the whole thing collapses in on itself. I feel like this is starting to happen on reddit where lots of subs are consumed by meta, but the best thing we can do here is get out and create active communities.
#1 rule on the internet: don’t feed the trolls. Downvote them, block them, move on. They’re not here to engage in good faith.
As someone who genuinely does enjoy trolling on rare occasion, I think you misunderstand what a troll is. Speaking sincerely held ideas from across the political spectrum does not make someone a troll. A troll is insincere yet playful. That’s not to say I shouldn’t be blocked by anyone who wants to block me, but it’s not for being a troll in this context.
No such thing as free speech on these “niche” social platforms. Pitchforks and torches, if this was real-life they’d be throwing you in a pond tied up and waiting for you to float…
14 day old account on its home instance, its only posting activity is within this thread, and both comments are low effort outrage farming with images.
The emotionally evocative hyperbole in the second sentence was pretty good though. Is it your own material? If so, can you write some more persecution porn for us? You don’t need images as your crutch, you’ve got some real writing talent going for you here.
A picture is worth a thousand words and just sums up this toxic thread and witch hunt.
Nah, it’s just your addiction to outrage farming on Twitter/Facebook showing. :)
A troll is insincere yet playful.
I chuckled at least. A troll’s motivation for the rise that they seek is largely inconsequential, as is the delivery mechanism. ;) Let’s not go and disenfranchise the majority of the internet’s trolling population with narrow typecasting!
While we’re on the topic of trolling, are you familiar with Sealioning?
Sealioning (also sea-lioning and sea lioning) is a type of trolling or harassment that consists of pursuing people with relentless requests for evidence, often tangential or previously addressed, while maintaining a pretense of civility and sincerity (“I’m just trying to have a debate”), and feigning ignorance of the subject matter. It may take the form of “incessant, bad-faith invitations to engage in debate”, and has been likened to a denial-of-service attack targeted at human beings. The term originated with a 2014 strip of the webcomic Wondermark by David Malki, which The Independent called “the most apt description of Twitter you’ll ever see”.
It’s a rhetorical question, no need to respond. Someone else might learn something they didn’t know before today. :)
The problem is that by that point it will have grown beyond manageability. You know the “Nazi bar” saying.
There’s a bunch of people (who are Nazis) and they seem cool, quiet, well spoken, just having a drink. And they bring their friends and those guys are cool too. Then those guys bring their friends and those guys are less cool and now normal people don’t drink at the bar anymore and you look around and it’s a Nazi bar and you can’t make them leave or they’ll start causing “problems”. So. I’m all for just using the brutal hammer of censorship.
It’s not a free speech platform and no one ever said it was.
Hate speech is not part of free speech anyways. Fuck nazis. Everyone that gets offended by that can get fucked as well.
It depends on your definition of free speech, the US constitution does consider it part of free speech.
The US constitution also considers free speech a right that protect a websites right not to repeat hate speech, not a users “right” to force a website to host their speech. In the constitutions view of the world free speech is protection against the government, not a tool to force other people to host your speech.
I really do not care about your constitution. I’m from Germany not the US.
‘“Germany places strict limits on speech and expression when it comes to right-wing extremism” or anything reminiscent of Nazism. Hate speech on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity also is banned in Germany.’
And I think this is the way all countries should handle it. No need to defend people promoting hate speech by debating me or your definition of free speach, I do not adhere by it.
Edit: I will wear 10A(ssholes’) downvote as a badge of honor, thank you!
I’m actually not from the US, I was just giving it as an example because it is the most famous one that unequivocally does include it.
What I’m really saying is “free speech” isn’t really one thing. It means different things in different contexts. For instance the breadth of “free speech” you should allow in what you promise to repeat (that’s what hosting something is) is much smaller than the breadth of “free speech” that you should not think less of someone for saying is in turn much smaller than the breadth of “free speech” that you should not wield the power of government to punish. And people legitimately disagree on where each of those boundaries lie.
I do think I missed the mark with the comment you replied to rereading it. I raised it because when someone says “It’s not a free speech platform and no one ever said it was” they are using the american republican-troll’s definition of free speech that means “anything but child porn”, and I think your reply was misunderstanding their comment as a result. But I don’t think I successfully conveyed my point.
Everything else aside, how you gonna say you don’t care about the US Constitution and then bring up the German Constitution? No one cares about that one either.
What is the relevance of the US constitution? This is not a US platform.
It depends on your definition of free speech
It’s one definition that is different than the definition that had been provided in the parent comment.
Appending:
Free speech also doesn’t mean “freedom from consequences.” And sometimes those include getting your shit deleted from a website or dragged up and down social media.
Something else that occurred to me. If someone posted something that was pro-woke in /r/conservative or on Parler or any of those other apps, they’d get banned immediately. “Free Speech” only seems to be a concern when it’s right-wingers posting on left-leaning forums, never the reverse.
I think that taking the free speech argument at face value in the present day just means you’re gullible.
I think hardcore conservatives simply don’t have an inherent sense of empathy. That’s why they don’t really care about the victims of a crime, disaster, etc. until it happens to them personally. They do not have the perspective to put themselves in another person’s shoes.
It’s NOT an intelligence issue. It’s easy to write people off as stupid, but that’s not the case. For them, being unable to think with empathy is as natural as being unable to see infrared light.
They’ve figured out that making themselves appear to be victims can sometimes make people listen, but they can’t fully explain why. That lack of understanding is why they don’t see the hypocrisy in banning people from their platforms, but then whining loudly when they’re treated the same way.
This is all just guesswork, but it’s the best explanation I’ve been able to come up with that doesn’t make my head explode.
Cross out the “hardcore”, lack of empathy is very much a core part of conservatism no matter which side of conservatism, social | fiscal, you lean into and by how much. If you’re socially conservative you want every social aspect to stay as it is which proves inherently a lack of empathy. If you’re fiscally conservative you want monetary value to stay as is (in terms of inflation and cost-cutting etc.) no matter whom it hurts (as long as it doesn’t hurt you, of course).
Which is why I personally think it actually is (also) an intelligence issue, because the people that are not socially conservative and only fiscally conservative usually vote for the party of big government and military spending ® which goes against anything fiscally conservative and as a “cool” side effect also proves to be detrimental to social values of different people and groups.
You probably know the quote by George Carlin, as its a told tale as old as day. I think the quote nicely illustrates the voting game in the US.
Reminds me of a quote by Nazi minister of propaganda Joseph Goebbels from 1935, after the Nazis took power:
“Wenn unsere Gegner sagen: Ja, wir haben Euch doch früher die […] Freiheit der Meinung zugebilligt – –, ja, Ihr uns, das ist doch kein Beweis, daß wir das Euch auch tuen sollen! […] Daß Ihr das uns gegeben habt, – das ist ja ein Beweis dafür, wie dumm Ihr seid!”
– source
Rough translation:
“When our enemies say: But we’ve granted you […] freedom of opinion back in the day – –, well, yes, you granted it to us, but that is no proof that we should do likewise! […] The fact that you granted it to us, – that is only proof for how stupid you are!”
For fascists at least talking about freedom of speech and the like is just another tool they try to wield in their quest to gain power, nothing else.
With the very rare exception, absolutely.
I’m no Nazi, but I get your point. What you don’t realize is once the bar kicks the Nazis out, they start their own bar, and there their numbers grow. A more intelligent approach is to rationally talk with them, as Daryl Davis has with KKK members.
You can’t reason a person out of a stance they didn’t reason themselves into.
For instance: How would you even begin to reason with someone that believes in demons? Where could any discussion even go if one side can waive away anything they don’t agree with by claiming it is a trick from a demon?
Just a general rule of thumb there little guy, when it comes to anything political if you find the nazis are on your side, you are on the wrong side.
They want the bar for the traffic. They can start their own bar but the extreme nature of it deters people from even setting foot.
They want to sit in places that look neutral or even friendly.
True, agreed. I’m only commenting on the idea that these people or groups shouldn’t get free advertising when people find them. These posts that are blasting their way to the top of “hot” just like a trending news article are counter-productive. On the Internet, which is fundamentally always at least partially an uncontrolled environment, it’s better take actions for these things that are as invisible as possible.
So here’s my issue here.
This guy is clearly not a small issue. He’s being as loud and obnoxious as possible.
If there’s nothing in place to deal with one huge troublemaker, what’s to stop a dozen who come to Kbin and start making hateful communities?
My concern at this point is that Kbin itself gets defederated because the other instances don’t think it’s taking moderation seriously.
In what way is it a huge deal? In what way was it loud? (Until now)
This person had a handful of heavily downvoted posts and interactions so they never made it to the “hot” or “active” pages.
(Are we talking about the same person?)
If you take a poll of everyone in this thread I would bet almost everyone hadn’t seen these posts or heard of the username.
But now they have, with the help of this post.
Speaking for myself I’ve seen both 10A and ps making these comments. 10A has managed to amass at least -2732 downvotes, ps -653, that’s not a trivial amount of interaction. I came across an antiwoke post on the front page (I think just right after it was posted, so bad luck). And I’m holding off advocating people move to kbin until I see a moderating policy that results in banning them.
It sounds like you were viewing the “new” tab?The hot/active tabs on Kbin wouldn’t receive that content so early. It will always be a wackamole game, no platform will ever succeed 100%. Once there are more advanced moderation tools, I would suggest silently removing objectionable content or users.
Also, I’ll have to disagree slightly, thats not a lot of interaction. This single post alone has over 300 upvotes since posted. The volume of either is simply an indication of how strongly people react.
It sounds like you were viewing the “new” tab?
I don’t think so, but I couldn’t swear to it.
thats not a lot of interaction
Probably we just have different thresholds for a lot. People seeing hate 3000 times on the platform seems like a lot to me.
You missed the whole point.
He said,
what’s to stop a dozen who come to Kbin and start making hateful communities?
That’s exactly my point. Even when there are better moderating tools and the site admins have time to delete magazines, they will still pop-up faster then you can stop them. No site on the internet has ever fully solved this issue.
Since that is the reality, by avoiding inadvertently promoting them before they’re removed, a site is much more efficient at managing the workload.
Posts like this can have the unintended consequence of spawning more trolls or objectionable actors, this can and does actually make the site management harder.
I think with better moderation tools, it’s absolutely possible to silence hate speech. The modern sanitized internet has managed to do it with child porn, which was EVERYWHERE in the wild west days. It’s possible with motivation.
Hate speech is profitable, so companies generally have a profit incentive to keep it around. The fediverse doesn’t.
clowns always trying to censor somebody… hunting for some low level degenerate to turn him into “antihero”
these people can’t seem to just enjoy a place with out starting a witch hunt
Nah, we’re nipping this shit in the bud because the shitposting is only the Trojan horse.
This shit’s already here. Now we gotta shine a light on it and deal with it.
Thank you for exposing all the people who want kbin to be just like Reddit. If that is what kbin turns into then it can join spez right where he belongs.
Your calls for censorship should get YOU and your peers in this thread banned.
Go hang out on Voat, bigot
It’s not censorship, it’s keeping people acting in bad faith from easily act in derogatory ways actively harming people.
Nazi Punks Fuck Off
