"Right and wrong"—as it is being used here—must always take into consideration hierarchies of oppression (e.g. white supremacy/racism, patriarchy/sexism, hetero-normativity/homophobia/queerphobia/transphobia, capitalism/classism, etc.). The quoted statement seems to ignore this, and take a reductive view that such issues are simply a matter of personal "discomfort". While the quote alone might be taken more...forgivingly, the context within an article presenting a binary choice of either removing "bigoted or distasteful content [to make it a] sanitized space" vs. letting such content be and letting the community simply try to change minds on it does not lend confidence in that kind of forgiving interpretation.
From a logistical standpoint: we simply cannot privilege your personal discomfort over anyone else’s, and we cannot always cater specifically to you and what you want. Your personal positions on right or wrong are not inherently more valid than someone else’s when weighing most questions of how we should moderate this space. There are often plenty of people who do not feel like you that we must also consider in moderation decisions.
This doesn't take into consideration forces of oppression, and is thus incorrect and very badly constructed. Was this jointly authored, or is it one admin's take alone?
Have you tried Revolt? It's supposed to FOSS and offer similar functionality to Discord. I keep meaning to try it, but haven't gotten around to it yet.
Yeah. Most of his power comes from his literal hundreds of billions of dollars of wealth, not the attention. Ignoring him will not suddenly make him a working-class bloke like everyone else.
I'm saying it's dumb to give the kind of answers people are giving in this post. We should've just said "yes, reactionaries are unwelcome" and moved on. It's not "nice" to help them organize to murder me, so I take exception to you characterizing only MY participation as not being nice.
Again, why would we help reactionaries discover communities they can become a part of where they are welcomed? Why would we tolerate their existence and their growth? That's absolutely silly. I don't "agree with you", but here's how you can find communities which do, so you can organize with them to crush me and the people I love. Dumb shit.
The idea that the U.S.S.R. was socialist or communist, or that it's controlling party was working to make it so, was propaganda that was convenient for both the U.S. (which was already deep in the throws of reaction against the left, and pretty much had been since its inception, and wanted to use it against its budding Cold-War enemy) and the U.S.S.R. (where leftist ideas were popular, so the government pretending to embody it was helpful to the state). It wasn't. It was just a very widely-spread and useful authoritarian lie.
That's okay. We don't have to help them set them up, or find them, or even know they exist. Why is everyone so obsessed with giving reactionaries the IT help they need to setup and grow communities of hate? Doesn't make any sense at all, TBH.
Dumb answer. I don't care. We shouldn't tolerate oppression, and we shouldn't burden ourselves with the need to support them or equivocate. If they want their own communities, they can support that completely on their own (including research on whether they can run their own shit and how) without our help. It's really fucking easy to just say "nah" and let them figure out whether to trust that answer or not. You're choosing to shoot yourself (and me, and everyone else) in the foot. How about just don't.
IMO it can be MUCH simpler. Deleting content should propagate across federation just like adding content does. De-federating should retroactively remove all content that it would normally keep from propagating (possibly leaving "this post/comment deleted" markers so that replies make sense). And losing track of an instance for long enough (e.g. a week, or a month) should be equivalent to de-federating, possibly with the option to resurrect content when and if the instance comes back online.
I believe that would remove a lot of the issues with extra traffic, and possibly a lot of the issues with extra processing. I don't know enough about the protocol to tell whether it would add requirements for extra data, but I suspect it wouldn't.
"Right and wrong"—as it is being used here—must always take into consideration hierarchies of oppression (e.g. white supremacy/racism, patriarchy/sexism, hetero-normativity/homophobia/queerphobia/transphobia, capitalism/classism, etc.). The quoted statement seems to ignore this, and take a reductive view that such issues are simply a matter of personal "discomfort". While the quote alone might be taken more...forgivingly, the context within an article presenting a binary choice of either removing "bigoted or distasteful content [to make it a] sanitized space" vs. letting such content be and letting the community simply try to change minds on it does not lend confidence in that kind of forgiving interpretation.