this post was submitted on 15 Jun 2023
143 points (100.0% liked)

Beehaw Support

2796 readers
1 users here now

Support and meta community for Beehaw. Ask your questions about the community, technical issues, and other such things here.

A brief FAQ for lurkers and new users can be found here.

Our September 2024 financial update is here.

For a refresher on our philosophy, see also What is Beehaw?, The spirit of the rules, and Beehaw is a Community


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.


if you can see this, it's up  

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

hey folks, we'll be quick and to the point with this one:

we have made the decision to defederate from lemmy.world and sh.itjust.works. we recognize this is hugely inconvenient for a wide variety of reasons, but we think this is a decision we need to take immediately. the remainder of the post details our thoughts and decision-making on why this is necessary.

we have been concerned with how sustainable the explosion of new users on Lemmy is--particularly with federation in mind--basically since it began. i have already related how difficult dealing with the explosion has been just constrained to this instance for us four Admins, and increasingly we're being confronted with external vectors we have to deal with that have further stressed our capabilities (elaborated on below).

an unfortunate reality we've also found is we just don't have the tools or the time here to parse out all the good from all the bad. all we have is a nuke and some pretty rudimentary mod powers that don't scale well. we have a list of improvements we'd like to see both on the moderation side of Lemmy and federation if at all possible--but we're unanimous in the belief that we can't wait on what we want to be developed here. separately, we want to do this now, while the band-aid can be ripped off with substantially less pain.

aside from/complementary to what's mentioned above, our reason for defederating, by and large, boils down to:

  • these two instances' open registration policy, which is extremely problematic for us given how federation works and how trivial it makes trolling, harassment, and other undesirable behavior;
  • the disproportionate number of moderator actions we take against users of these two instances, and the general amount of time we have to dedicate to bad actors on those two instances;
  • our need to preserve not only a moderated community but a vibe and general feeling this is actually a safe space for our users to participate in;
  • and the reality that fulfilling our ethos is simply not possible when we not only have to account for our own users but have to account for literally tens of thousands of new, completely unvetted users, some of whom explicitly see spaces like this as desirable to troll and disrupt and others of whom simply don't care about what our instance stands for

as Gaywallet puts it, in our discussion of whether to do this:

There's a lot of soft moderating that happens, where people step in to diffuse tense situations. But it's not just that, there's a vibe that comes along with it. Most people need a lot of trust and support to open up, and it's really hard to trust and support who's around you when there are bad actors. People shut themselves off in various ways when there's more hostility around them. They'll even shut themselves off when there's fake nice behavior around. There's a lot of nuance in modding a community like this and it's not just where we take moderator actions- sometimes people need to step in to diffuse, to negotiate, to help people grow. This only works when everyone is on the same page about our ethos and right now we can't even assess that for people who aren't from our instance, so we're walking a tightrope by trying to give everyone the benefit of the doubt. That isn't sustainable forever and especially not in the face of massive growth on such a short timeframe.

Explicitly safe spaces in real life typically aren't open to having strangers walk in off the street, even if they have a bouncer to throw problematic people out. A single negative interaction might require a lot of energy to undo.

and, to reiterate: we understand that a lot of people legitimately and fairly use these instances, and this is going to be painful while it's in effect. but we hope you can understand why we're doing this. our words, when we talk about building something better here, are not idle platitudes, and we are not out to build a space that grows at any cost. we want a better space, and we think this is necessary to do that right now. if you disagree we understand that, but we hope you can if nothing else come away with the understanding it was an informed decision.

this is also not a permanent judgement (or a moral one on the part of either community's owner, i should add--we just have differing interests here and that's fine). in the future as tools develop, cultures settle, attitudes and interest change, and the wave of newcomers settles down, we'll reassess whether we feel capable of refederating with these communities.

thanks for using our site folks.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] towerful@beehaw.org 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

This instance does stand for censorship. The admins have been very vocal about not being free speech enthusiasts.
It's just that they have a very moderate stance on where and when to apply censorship.

If their views and opinions on censorship, how it's applied, and how they run their instance don't align with your views then that's absolutely fine.
The beauty of the fediverse is that there are many other instances and communities for you to participate in.

You can have your opinion, and you can not-be-censored somewhere else.

[–] pleaseclap@urbanists.social 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

@towerful @original_ish_name

I want to add: curating or moderating content anywhere that's not owned by the public is not a free speech issue

The first amendment is about what Congress can't do

[–] pleaseclap@urbanists.social 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

@towerful @original_ish_name You'd think if all these "free speech enthusiasts" really believed that having a code of conduct was a violation of a constitutional guarantee, they would be applying their logic evenly to all of their hosts, including their employers

But they don't

They do understand the purpose and validity of a code of conduct on private property (such as a social media network): they know they're making a bad argument: the point isn't to make a good argument, it's to attack

the point isn't to make a good argument, it's to attack

That's not a small claim you're making. You're saying I don't care about free speech, that I just want to watch the world burn

[–] original_ish_name@latte.isnot.coffee 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I think you misunderstood what I was trying to say

I'm saying that banning an instance is censorship. I'm not saying the reasons they banned it are invalid. The thing is, when you ban an instance you don't just ban bad actors. You ban people with opinions, this is where I'm concerned

They do understand the purpose and validity of a code of conduct on private property

I do, but code of conducts should be limited. No code of conduct should ban political opinions (unless its an opinion that is just inciting violence in disguise like "you should get the death penalty for being black." stuff like "trans women aren't real women" is fine but "trans people should be murdered" is not)

(such as a social media network)

They would be private property accept for one thing: content is made by your average human. Not the hosters. Its not their content to own and people expect the content to be uncensored and if 90% of posts say one opinion, people expect that to be the popular opinion

[–] pleaseclap@urbanists.social 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

@original_ish_name I appreciate the use of the word "should" in your argument, because it telegraphs that you do understand your prescriptions are rooted in your feelings

[–] original_ish_name@latte.isnot.coffee 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This is the game you're playing, huh? I hate when people do this, not trying to disprove arguments but rather making fun of the arguer.

Well two can play at that game, that's why I'm making this post

[–] amortized_cost@beehaw.org 1 points 1 year ago

Don't try to reason. Some people only see your "transphobic" freedom of speech advocacy and immediately turn into condescending sjw

[–] original_ish_name@latte.isnot.coffee 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This is nothing to do with the american first amendment. This is to do with the internationally recognized human right

[–] pleaseclap@urbanists.social 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

@original_ish_name
You just upped the absurdity of your argument by several degrees: article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights isn't abridged by a private website curating its content. For that matter, it's not a law that can be violated at all: the document self-identifies as "a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive"

[–] original_ish_name@latte.isnot.coffee 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I don't care. Its a moral law. I'm not accusing beehaw of breaking the law, I'm accusing them of being immoral.

I don't care that it can't be violated, it says very clear that you must keep it in mind in order to strive. Thanks to people like you, we might just lose freedom of speech

[–] pleaseclap@urbanists.social 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

@original_ish_name That accusation is so absurd and spiteful, it doesn't deserve the dignity of a rebuttal.

I used "immoral" for lack of better term

[–] original_ish_name@latte.isnot.coffee 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Just because you admit something doesn't make it fine. This isn't to disprove your entire argument but I just want to make it clear

It's just that they have a very moderate stance on where and when to apply censorship.

I don't think banning 2 instances without warning is "moderate." They could have at least asked the instance Admins to be more restrictive when moderating beforehand

The beauty of the fediverse is that there are many other instances and communities for you to participate in.

No, the beauty of the fediverse is I can go to other instances and participate with the same communities. Can't do that if my instance defederates. Defederation should be reserved for allowing extremely repulsive content

You can have your opinion, and you can not-be-censored somewhere else.

But who will hear me?

[–] towerful@beehaw.org 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

My understanding is that they did reach out - and are continuing discussions - with the admins of these instances.
Lemmy.world are working on it with some custom mod tools, however are unable to establish a timeline. As a result, the issue still stands and may continue to be an issue for weeks or months.
Shitjustworks have not responded.
The beehaw admins are continuing discussions. They don't want this defederation. But it is currently the only lever they have to toggle, and they are prioritising their own community and community goals over other communities outside of their control. And they will reasses this defederation regularly

However, this has only come out in subsequent discussions and comments. So I can understand your frustration.
It would be nice if they made an edit to the post to include steps they have taken, what they are currently working on WRT this defederation, and what's likely to come.
However, it is a developing situation.

Beehaw has always been clear on their goals, their ethos, their whatever-you-want-to-call-it.
Beehaw defederating with other instances was always a part of that, although perhaps not explicitly stated.
Ultimately, this entire situation is unprecedented, and the Lemmy framework hasn't prioritised the tools to deal with these situations with the nuances they require - and quite rightly, too: Lemmy has never been big enough to require it, and there has been many other issues to address first.

[–] original_ish_name@latte.isnot.coffee 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It would be nice if they made an edit to the post to include steps they have taken

It would. I am less angry at them now (still a bit angry though)

Beehaw has always been clear on their goals, their ethos, their whatever-you-want-to-call-it. Beehaw defederating with other instances was always a part of that, although perhaps not explicitly stated.

And that's why I hate beehaw, I understand that some people might agree with beehaw and that's the audience beehaw is intended for, but I don't like echo chambers, even when they are echo chambers for other people

[–] towerful@beehaw.org 2 points 1 year ago

from everything I have read (and some of it since I last replied to you!), these specific defederations arent about echo chambers or dissenting opinions.
Its been about dealing with an excessive amount of abusive/toxic/harassing users that have come predominantly from specific instances and are interacting directly on the beehaw instance. Its about things like death threats, child porn, and trolls.
These aren't different opinions. These are users that are against beehaw's ethos. And there is a quantity of them beyond what beehaw admins can deal with manually.
And until there are tools to deal with this sorta thing, defederation with these instance because of the quantity of bad actors is the admins chosen (even, only) solution.