Hey, I just did a quick browse through the blocked instances list for infosec.pub and have a few questions about it. Seems like we are blocking sh.itjust.works which at first glance just looks like one of the bigger general purpose instances. Meanwhile more overtly problematic instances like lemmygrad (tankie instance) or exploding heads (“free speech extremists”) are federated with. Generally the block list seems fairly small compared to a lot of other instances.
So are these intentional choices or is it more a matter of the admins not (having the time to be) bothering with it? If it’s not intentional, maybe checking some other instances blocklists to weed out the biggest trolls/offenders could be useful.
IMO it’s not a good solution to just say “just block the bigots”. The problem is that for new users, they are going to see those bigoted posts. They’re going to either think that’s what kind of site Lemmy is and potentially leave, or they’ll potentially get pulled in by the bigots. Both are bad situations.
Especially for blatant bigotry, it makes perfect sense to take measures to ensure that the site is safe for everyone by default, without every individual person having to take action (especially those without accounts or not signed in).
So lemmy needs a “soft” block. A system that moderates it out of the default streams, but allows an individual user to still add communities they want to see in their subscriptions.
@CoderKat
I guess you define “safe” as “never being exposed to an opinion that offends you”. Good luck with that standard. It seems entirely subjective.
cc: @jonne @fr0g
You’re strawmanning so hard here, it’s an actual fire hazard.
They are correct though, it is subjective and it will shift over time as the “acceptable” political lines change over time.
Bigotry, blatant bigotry especially is hardly subjective. It’s more subtle forms might be harder to indentify without making some biased judgements, but that doesn’t make it inherently subjective.
I don’t know how you can say that given that less than 100 years ago in all of the Western world (save maybe France). Bigotry was the default governmental, societal and scientific position. And opposition to it was seen as distasteful as bigotry is today.
I don’t understand what point you think you are making here. Me saying bigotry can be objectively indentified and is objectvely bad (although I didn’t even argue for the latter part yet) isn’t invalidated by pointing out society used to think (what we today identify as) bigotry was good. Because past people thinking X was good might just have been a subjective judgement, unless you can provide the reasoning people used to argue for X being good and it objectively holds up. And people subjectively deciding X is good, has asolutely zero bearing on whether X is objectively good or not. People mistakenly thinking the Earth is flat doesn’t mean that we can’t objectively determine that it isn’t.
Bigotry is inherently a thing whose definition changes over time based on the society/person making the decision. As opposed to the flatness or roundness of the earth.
You in 1923, 2023 and 2123 will all decide with the same set of facts that the earth is not flat. That’s objectivity.
You in 1923, 2023 and 2123 will all have different decisions on what is and is not bigotry given the same set of facts. That’s subjectivity.
@mwguy @fr0g Now, many apply the term bigot to anyone who makes moral judgments concerning behavior that are different than the moral judgments they make. In that context the term is entirely subjective. It’s no more than name-calling.
Meriam-Webster - bigot: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (such as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance
Saying black people deserve to be eslaved and murdered was bigoted 200 years ago, is bigoted now and will be bigoted in 200 years. The fact that it was once widely condoned by parts of society doesn’t make it any less intolerant or hateful. And obviously it was always just parts condoning it. Black people certainly didn’t think it was okay. And that’s also why these “it was considered good hundreds of years ago” arguments don’t even add up. Because even back then it was only considered “good” if you exclude the opinions of those who were oppressed, which obviously is an incomplete picture.
Also, just go back a couple hundred years more and suddenly even people considered “learned” would say the earth is flat. It’s still objectively not. Because whether people think something is one way or another and whether that changed over time is simply no way to determine whether something is objective or not. I already made that point last post.Those things simply don’t have anything to do with another, so I don’t understand why you keep making the same logical mistake.
deleted by creator