I know this post will probably be downvoted to hell, give me much problems and probably will make my account being banned but you have to know that i take no side writing this.
So i wanted to take a look at lemmygrad.ml to see if it was as it’s reputation is(im not the kind of person to follow the herd without thinking by myself) and apparently lemmygrad never defederated with any instances without consulting it’s members(which lemmy.world and others instances did).
So i was thinking, isn’t censoring content without asking your community a totalitarian thing like north korea or any so-called totalitarian country could have done ?
I know i may be incorrect but i accept any kind of criticism against this post if it’s constructive, “shut up hidden tankie” or any kind of free insult isn’t a valid arguments, if you really defend democracy as i do im sure you can debate while being civilized.
I’m no longer a leftist, but when I was a leftist (and yes, I mean “real” leftist, critical support for AES states and other such nonsense), there were no objections to dictatorships or censorship. I don’t know where you got the idea that leftists love democratic absolutism and freedom in every aspect of society.
Also I hate to tell you, but many leftists (dengists) here think highly of modern North Korea and China.
not all leftist are the same, I can say with pretty high confidence that despite mostly being real leftist very few lemmy.blahaj.zone users support the current government of north korea
Nobody’s being censored. Anyone can go to lemmygrad and read their content. They’re not even being deplatformed - nobody’s preventing them from posting anything their instance allows on that instance. It’s closer to curation than censorship… instances are free to curate the content they host. If you don’t like the curation of a given instance, just move to a different one.
No it’s not censorship because if you want to see Lemmygrad’s content then you can join Lemmygrad.
In the same way, I like gardening and so subscribe to ‘Gardeners World’; doesn’t mean everyone else should be subjected to posts about weeding, feeding and getting rid of blackfly if they are not interested in that.
IF YOU DON’T LISTEN TO ME IT’S CENSORSHIP!!!
I don’t have a definite answer to that. Instances are free to associate/disassociate, elevate/silence certain opinions. However, do we want an instance to continue to exercise if they become the digital town square like the pre-Musk Twitter was?
Exercise? Not sure what’s meant here.
If let’s say one of the instances becomes as big as Reddit/Twitter are in the internet, do we want them picking which opinions are acceptable?
I think you have a point here, although I think the issue is less with defederation itself, which is an important tool to manage conflict between instances, but rather with the lack of democratic governance in instances themselves.
So, you are right that admins imposing defederation unilaterally is an authoritarian action in line with things the North Korea or other repressive governments have done, though obviously far less severe due to the lack of violent enforcement behind it.
In a shallow analysis, one could blame admins for not implementing democratic governance (as you claim LemmyGrad has done). But you need to remember that running an instance is typically an unpaid act of mutual aid done for the community—blaming admins for not doing more work to make a better system seems a bit harsh when it would take substantially more work to set up such a system.
A better solution would be to build democratic mechanisms into a social media platform itself. This would allow democratic decision-making in defederation and other issues by default, rather than forcing admins to create such a system from scratch. I actually think both Reddit and Lemmy were steps in this direction, with Reddit adding upvotes and downvotes to democratize content curation, and with Lemmy’s federated nature at least allowing user choice in which admins they want to be subordinated by.
However, both of these platforms were created by people who believe in authoritarian ideologies. These democratic elements were added individually to solve specific problems—neither Lemmy nor Reddit had an explicit goal of making a more democratic platform in all respects.
I am hoping that the online space will continue to evolve in this direction. Since I doubt Lemmy developers share this vision, there may come a time when people who want this will need to migrate to another platform, or create a fork of the current software. Since I’m not a developer, can’t contribute myself, but I will keep my eyes open for good ideas in this vein.
So, you are right that admins imposing defederation unilaterally is an authoritarian action in line with things the North Korea or other repressive governments have done, though obviously far less severe due to the lack of violent enforcement behind it.
What? It’s nothing like that at all. Your instance isn’t a country; you aren’t stuck there. You can go wherever you want. You can read content on multiple instances.
It’s more akin to CNN deciding not to run a story that Newsmax is covering. You can have more than one source for your news.
I think you have a point here, although I think the issue is less with defederation itself, which is an important tool to manage conflict between instances, but rather with the lack of democratic governance in instances themselves.
Instances are run by individuals, who in turn have the power to run those instances as they see fit. If you dislike how a particular instance is being run, move to a different one, it’s as simple as that.
One could also simply move to another country if desired. I think there is a parallel. Obviously that’s much simpler with instances than countries but there is still a commonality here.
The fact that there I can choose which authoritarian system I want to be under means little when they are all quite similar. I don’t know of any instances that have such democratic governance. They are all run by their admins as they see fit. It would be like choosing if I want to live in North Korea or Nazi Germany. Sure, they might be different in some ways, but I don’t have a real voice in decisions either way.
Again, I have acknowledged the problem is far less severe with instances compared to countries. But the power structures involved are quite similar.
One could also simply move to another country if desired.
That’s nowhere near as easy for the majority of people - especially those in authoritarian countries - as you’re making it out to be.
North Korean defectors are North Korean people who left North Korea to become citizens in a new country. In North Korea, it is against the law to leave North Korea without permission. North Koreans are also not allowed to change their own citizenship, so anyone born a North Korean must also die a North Korean. The punishment for leaving North Korea without permission is extremely harsh. People who are caught are usually sent a prison camp or put to death in public. Like many other crimes in North Korea, illegally leaving the country may not only punish the accused, but also his or her family up to three generations.
The fact that there I can choose which authoritarian system I want to be under means little when they are all quite similar. I don’t know of any instances that have such democratic governance. They are all run by their admins as they see fit. It would be like choosing if I want to live in North Korea or Nazi Germany. Sure, they might be different in some ways, but I don’t have a real voice in decisions either way.
Anyone can start an instance. Make your own, and federate with whomever you want. Nobody’s stopping you.
I’m not sure why you’re giving a history lesson when I already acknowledged that point in the comment you are replying to. Again, ease of migration has an effect on the severity of the problem, but not the underlying dynamic itself.
Sure, I theoretically could create my own instance, but then I would have the same problem as current instance admins, even those who are sympathetic to these ideas, as I suspect Lemmy.world and my own are. That there is no structure within Lemmy to enable collective decisions to be made or executed, and I would need to build them from scratch. Fundamentally, I lack the expertise to do so, though I’d be interested in a community discussion on how this could work.
This is very similar to telling people being exploited at work to get a better job or start their own business. Sure, theoretically, this might sometimes solve the problem, but it’s going to be a much better solution if we change the underlying system that creates these problems in the first place.
I’m not sure why you’re giving a history lesson when I already acknowledged that point in the comment you are replying to.
It’s because, despite claiming to have acknowledged the problem, you’re still making such an incredible false equivalency - comparing joining a new Lemmy instance to moving out of an authoritarian country - that you either completely misunderstand what you’re talking about, or you’re arguing in bad faith.
Sure, I theoretically could create my own instance, but then I would have the same problem as current instance admins, even those who are sympathetic to these ideas, as I suspect Lemmy.world and my own are. That there is no structure within Lemmy to enable collective decisions to be made or executed, and I would need to build them from scratch.
You’d have full control over your instance, and could, if you built up a community, use any online voting method you wanted - of which there are plenty - to poll your userbase and gather their opinions.
However, ultimately, you’d be the one paying for the instance, and doing the work to set it up and keep it updated and running. What would you do if you attracted a userbase that had views that were completely counter to your own? What if you attracted the alt-right crowd, and what got voted into place was all hate-speech, nazi rhetoric, and intolerance? (I assume you disagree with these things…) Would you continue paying for and hosting the instance, just because that’s what was democratically decided, even though it’s no longer an instance that you want to participate in? Could anyone really fault you for not wanting to do that?
A better method might be for you to make clear your own opinions - either via a post explaining them, or via a pre-defined federation / defederation plan - and let people join your instance who agreed with those decisions. Which, incidentally, is how most instances currently operate.
I don’t know what to tell you. I am fully aware of the history and difficulties in migration out of authoritarian governments. Sometimes situations that are quite different in some ways nonetheless share common features. That is all I’m saying, but you seem to be too emotionally triggered by the differences to acknowledge the similarities. Maybe take a step back and think on it and you will see them.
As far as your second point… yes… that’s exactly the problem I am outlining. The current system will almost inevitably lead to non-democratically managed instances, regardless of intent. In order to change that, we need to change the underlying system. I mentioned democratic decision-making around defederation but it’s likely other changes will be needed as well.
I mentioned democratic decision-making around defederation but it’s likely other changes will be needed as well.
Be the change you want to see in the world. You don’t have to code in an integrated solution; all you’d have to do is set up an online poll, listing all of the other instances up for consideration (such a list can be pretty easily obtained - for example from https://lemmy.fediverse.observer/list ), run a new poll on regular intervals, say, every 2 months, and let anyone who is interested vote. Then, you update the defederation list based on the results of the poll.
However, I think you’ll quickly run into the other problems I outlined which, unfortunately, can’t really be changed. You could require everyone who’s participating in the voting to also be contributing time or money to run the server, except that then you’re operating a plutocracy, not a democracy, so most likely, you’ll need to be giving up your time and money to make your desired server administration a reality.
The difference between servers and countries is that servers aren’t countries and countries aren’t servers.
Servers aren’t a democracy. Well, most of them anyway.
The difference between a violent, oppressive authoritarian regime and a fee Fediverse server is that you’re free to join other servers. Multiple at the same time, even! You can just leave, no passports, no refugee status, no paperwork.
You can even set up your personal little server where you decide on the rules. A server for you and your friends can cost as little as ten dollars per month. Try that in any real country and you’d be considered an insurrectionist or a traitor, do it online and it’s just everyday business.
The unfortunate reality of most “everybody is welcome” servers is that hey generally attract a lot of people who have been banned elsewhere. Some for stupid reasons (like calling any criticism of the CCP “orientalism”), some for very valid reasons. You need some form of moderation, or your server is going to be a cesspool. Some server admins preemptively decide to block servers that don’t have moderation that’s up to their standards, others wait for abuse to spread to their server.
If you dislike it, join another instance that doesn’t defederate with it; it’s as simple as that.
Are you really comparing the use of freedom of association with state censorship backed by literal violence?
How is defederating an instance without asking your community first a democratic action ? they also did the same with piracy communities and everybody claimed that “they didn’t asked us first”.
Also something to consider is that each federated instance keeps their copy of that content. If the content is some hateful propaganda, those instances may also be held legally responsible for that. Same with piracy communities.
Fedi platforms have a key distinction putting them separate from most other online platforms in that you can literally create your own and have all the rights of a platform admin today, and have access to the very same content as you would having an account on another’s node. In that regard there’s much less room to complain about unilateral actions by the instance owner than there would be for other systems. As the size of an instance grows you run a greater risk any time you take such an action, but so long as it’s consistent with past behavior it shouldn’t be a major problem. Large instances like .world have made some cuts that ruffled a few feathers and then backed them off if people objected, but sometimes direct democracy isn’t particularly viable in what might be a time sensitive situation.
It’s about people making decisions unilaterally, changing something that they don’t care the users nah like it dislike. Saying, well you can do it too, isn’t a serious response. Not everyone has the resources or the time to run instances.
Then if running a docker container isn’t an option search through the multitudes of alternate instances and select one that agrees with your moderation policy. I’m sure there are plenty of ‘freeze-peach’ instances out there, for a while at least the infamous GAB was a part of the fedi, though I think they got pretty universally banished right off the bat.
There is a difference between censorship and the right to not have to listen to somebody. Being banned from having a platform to speak from could count as censorship (for example being banned from Reddit). However with Lemmy those on lemmygrad are free to say whatever they want, the difference is that everyone else is just as free to not have to listen. The idea of the Lemmy instances is that they have the ability to curate content - an instance catering to an LGBT community is not going to want to have to listen to right wing evangelicals and you join up on that knowledge. If you want to have the option to hear every single voice then join an instance with that mindset or just host your own.
Thanks for you constructive comment.
the difference is that everyone else is just as free to not have to listen. You’re right, if you refuse to hear people’s opinions it’s your absolute right, even if i strongly disagree with it because i consider it being closed mind imo.
When you use a a server which you didn’t host by yourself you have to accept the ToS and it include the ability of admins to defederate from whatever instance they want WO asking their community, so democracy isn’t obligatory unless it’s in their ToS.
If you don’t want your administration to choose for you, you have always the option to switch servers to something you think it’s better or host it yourself.
