this post was submitted on 24 Jul 2023
291 points (95.0% liked)

Fediverse

28732 readers
264 users here now

A community to talk about the Fediverse and all it's related services using ActivityPub (Mastodon, Lemmy, KBin, etc).

If you wanted to get help with moderating your own community then head over to !moderators@lemmy.world!

Rules

Learn more at these websites: Join The Fediverse Wiki, Fediverse.info, Wikipedia Page, The Federation Info (Stats), FediDB (Stats), Sub Rehab (Reddit Migration), Search Lemmy

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] CloverSi@lemmy.comfysnug.space 141 points 1 year ago (40 children)

So blahaj.zone defederated a whole instance because one community on lemmynsfw has pictures of (verified) adults that don't look adult enough? That seems... extreme, and rather insulting to the women whose bodies/appearances are supposedly too close to actual children to be worthy of attraction. Glad that's not my instance, though to each their own.

[–] Carighan@lemmy.world 86 points 1 year ago (5 children)

If it's as presented in the quote then yeah, this feels like that australian porn law they tried where "if you look like you could be underage, it counts as child sex material" and one specific example from the text was "too small or flat breasts". Which was just patently absurd.

[–] chaogomu@kbin.social 65 points 1 year ago (3 children)

I seem to remember a guy being convicted for possession of child porn, and the very much adult porn star actually came to his trial to testify in his defense... I'll see if I can find a link about it, but that will be some risky searching.

[–] Givesomefucks@kbin.social 84 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Lupe something.

And he wasnt convicted, but was going to. The state had a "medical expert" show up and testify that there was no way an adult woman could look like that. Just 100% sure of himself and smug as fuck about it.

Then the defense called the pornstar to the stand and she was in her late 20s or something and working in the industry for over a decade.

It was something that never should have made it to trial, and gets used a lot as an example for how shit expert testimony can be. The prosecution doesn't try to find the person who knows the most, they find whoever can do the best job of convincing a jury that the prosecution is right. So the people who do it (some are professional "expert witnesses") are just the most overconfident people. Even if they're not sure, they play it up that there can't be any doubt.

[–] Carighan@lemmy.world 65 points 1 year ago

Ah, found the story. That is wild. Also amazing of her to actually fly over to testify, I thought it was in her own country or something. Amazing person! <3

[–] yoyolll@lemmy.world 29 points 1 year ago

Lupe Fuentes. What’s worse is that she was already registered in multiple US studios since she made films here, too, so the prosecution could have easily verified her documents, which the defense attorney asked her to do. Instead, she had the CBP agent who made the arrest and an “expert” doctor testify that Lupe couldn’t have been more than 13.

Good article on it here: https://reason.com/2010/05/03/porn-star-saves-man-from-incom/

[–] LexiconDexicon@lemmy.world 21 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That crap is borderline Puritanism, wtf is wrong with people?

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] CloverSi@lemmy.comfysnug.space 21 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

There's some further correspondence in the linked post, and yeah that's basically what it boiled down to. What a strange world. I can't believe that's a real law.

[–] Turkey_Titty_city@kbin.social 20 points 1 year ago (2 children)

lawmakers are not intelligent or discerning people

[–] FaceDeer@kbin.social 21 points 1 year ago

They're pandering to voters with laws like that. The politicians probably don't care.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (38 replies)
[–] SloganLessons@kbin.social 72 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Weird drama over nothing tbh

Communities are free to federate with whoever they want;

Consenting adults can do whatever they want.

Now give me a medal

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] spacedancer@lemmy.world 71 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (8 children)

I saw the drama unfold when I was browsing All. My 2 cents:

  • In terms of the content in question, the lemmynsfw admin was right. I believe the community they were talking about was c/adorableporn, which AFAIK is just naked women acting cute, not acting or implying they are underage. The blahaj admin seemed to have misunderstood the premise of the community.

  • On the other hand, the lemmynsfw admin didn't really explain it properly and some of the words they used didn't exactly help their justification. At one point the admin said they do not discriminate against a poster's gender, looks, age, etc. and used words akin to saying they do not discriminate against people who are "too young". Obviously that didn't come across well in the conversation with the blahaj admin. The community's rules also had some questionable wording ("child-like" is the term I believe they used), which the mods changed when it was pointed out. So all these things didn't really help their defense.

  • At the end of the day, it's the blahaj admin's lemmy instance, so they can do whatever they want and defederate if they wish. It's up to the users on the instance to decide if it was justifiable and if they are ok with losing access to the entire lemmynsfw instance because of a misunderstanding.

EDIT for transparency purposes: As someone mentioned in the replies, I missed the word "adult" in recalling the statement that mentioned "too young", so the admin did word it correctly. I stand corrected.

[–] krayj@lemmy.world 47 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

they do not discriminate against people who are “too young”.

This is a misrepresentation of what was said. Was that intentional? It sounds like you are trying to inject your own opinion into what you are presenting as factual and unbiased.

The actual quote I think you are referring to is:

That means no adult on our instance is too thin, fat, bald, masculine, old, young, cis, gay, etc., to be sexy, and that includes not discriminating against legal adults that look younger than people think they should. Everyone has a right to lust and to be lusted after.

I've highlighted some key words I think you missed.

[–] spacedancer@lemmy.world 28 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (6 children)

I was typing from memory. Now that you pasted the actual quote, I realize the word "adult" was there; so not intentional and I stand corrected. In any case, my point still stands that I think the conversation between the admins could've gone better. Maybe the lemmynsfw admin could've explained it another way; on the other hand, the blahaj admin seemed to just be looking for a reason to finally defederate and seemed like they already decided before the conversation even started.

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
[–] gavi@lemmynsfw.com 67 points 1 year ago (19 children)

Admin from LemmyNSFW here, not the one that posted but an admin nonetheless.

I'm not really down with this being presented as drama as some are trying to, it's unfortunate the way it played out but overall its their choice to defederate. We actively encourage other instances who forbid pornography to defederate from us. Lemmy.ml, sopuli, etc etc we are totally fine with, we have no malice or hate towards them because thats their choice and their reasons and concerns for doing so are more than legitimate especially with how limited lemmy is right now and the locations that they host their site at. We have open discussions with other instance admins and welcome discussions of their potential concerns, it's just we didn't really know what the concerns were beyond "this looks wrong because it looks wrong delete it" which made it extremely frustrating to try to figure out concisely what the problem was so we could address it.

My only issue is it being presented as if we are fine with CSAM, when we aren't and to be accused of that is extremely serious.

load more comments (18 replies)
[–] Betch@lemmy.world 55 points 1 year ago (5 children)

Damn, lotta people here are thirsty for drama. Who cares if they defederated, no one in here is actually a blahaj.zone member, how about you let the users from that instance complain about it if they want to? I find it kinda weird that you're all jumping on the admin for not wanting to be associated with that instance when it doesn't concern you at all.

Isn't that the beauty of the fediverse? None of you are affected by this. What is it that you want? For all instances to be the same? What's even the point of making your own instance then?

Y'all are fucking weirdos fr. OP doth protest too much.

[–] Strawberry@lemmy.blahaj.zone 37 points 1 year ago (3 children)

no one in here is actually a blahaj.zone member

This hurt my feelings

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Ginjutsu@lemmy.world 24 points 1 year ago (2 children)

You do realize that many people on this instance participate in blahaj.zone communities, right? Why call people 'weirdos' for actually caring about how the communities and instances which they interact with are ran?

I feel like you're being unnecessarily inflammatory here. People are entitled to discuss whatever they want to when it comes to the Fediverse in this community, and this topic falls well within that category. No need to attack people for sharing their opinions on the matter.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] rist097@lemmy.world 54 points 1 year ago (26 children)

Not the first time that person was looking around for reasons to be outraged and ban communities. I hope they decide to go isolated and defederate from all instances.

Illegal content should be removed in any case, but there is nothing illegal here.

load more comments (26 replies)
[–] Desistance@lemmy.world 53 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Sounds like they were trying to find a reason to defederate.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] AphoticDev@lemmy.dbzer0.com 48 points 1 year ago (2 children)

The blahaj admin defederating is totally fair, and it's the whole point of the fediverse. The dragging the issue into the public view to cover up their own mistaken impression is absolutely silly. The public attack in the form of implication that the other admin is supporting CSAM is sickening. This person comes across as the type to manufacture drama to make themselves seem like a victim. Were I an instance admin, they would be exactly the kind of person I would want to defederate from, as nothing good comes from association with people who like to play victim for attention.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] maegul@lemmy.ml 45 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

IMO, plenty of nuance lacking in the discussion here.

  1. Being able to defederate whenever you want is the point of all this. Freedom of association. It’s not a big deal.
    • EDIT/ADDITION: someone defederating from something you enjoy doesn’t mean that you can’t continue to enjoy it or that they have defederated from you personally. Each of us managing our own situation here is the whole point. It’s not personal. It’s not about you.
  2. This especially goes for instances that are trying to create safe spaces for vulnerable people, as blahaj.zone is. To all the critics here, the job of such moderation is probably harder than you realise. There appears to be little empathy for what such an effort is trying to achieve. Moreover, it almost certainly will involve decisions that will not make sense to you if you don’t belong to the instance’s demographic. It’s also ok, given their circumstances, that they make decisions that seem excessive … because they have a bigger job to do than ensuring that they’re not too Puritan etc
  3. This is even more especially so when it comes to something as intrinsically controversial, problematic and illicit as CSAM.
    • Just today a report came out stating that fediverse has a CSAM problem, where such content being masked by appearing alongside otherwise acceptable material is part of the problem. So maybe not fucking around with this shit as an admin makes a lot of sense, and maybe being less cavalier as a community about this issue might actually be necessary if we are all to enjoy our free social media ecosystem. We’ve lost one instance to being carefree about this stuff (vlemmy). And is “adorable porn” so important that it needs defending?
    • See Verge Article and Mastodon thread by author of report
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Ubettawerk@lemmy.blahaj.zone 35 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

Even though I don’t 100% agree with the defederation, it’s a bit alarming how quick commenters are to chastise their decision. Why risk being federated with a community that will allow or seek “childlike” NSFW content? That’s just asking for trouble, so I can understand why an instance would avoid being associate with that. That’s a huge risk for someone hosting a fairly large instance, especially with the criticism and accusations the LGBTQ+ community has been subject to recently

[–] OwenEverbinde@reddthat.com 27 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (7 children)

Exactly this. Right wing propaganda already portrays the LGBTQ+ community as child groomers who are sexualizing minors.

Forget gasoline or lighter fluid: allowing federation with "barely 18!" content would throw a whole propane tank on that fire.

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 45 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Right wing propaganda also portrays Sex Ed as grooming, defends child marriage, and regularly threatens anyone they don't like. Up to and including attempting a coup.

You don't negotiate with terrorists. They won't stop because of it, they just get bolder.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] neuromancer@lemmy.world 24 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

The community is similar to something like !pretty_women@lemmy.world with full nudity, but without any kind of hardcore pornography.

The only bad thing they did was include "child-like" in the synonyms that describe the theme, which they corrected themselves before blahaj was involved. They have clear content policies, and it's clearly adults in the content posted.

Saying you need to protect yourself from this perverted filth is not really any different from what the right wing is doing to the LGBT community.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Die4Ever@programming.dev 34 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (14 children)

Lemmy needs more tools to help avoid defederation. Like the admins being able to block communities (defederating a community interested of the entire instance), or hide posts from a community/instance from c/All so people who are still subscribed or manually search can still find the posts

Also users should be able to block instances just for themselves, just posts or comments as well

load more comments (14 replies)
[–] Ginjutsu@lemmy.world 28 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Ah, the good ol' 'administrator discretion'. Seems like a classic case of power-tripping site admins doubling down on their opinion while disregarding any notion that they may be in the wrong. Can't say I'm surprised - it was only a matter of time before we saw this kind of behavior in the threadiverse.

Regardless of how you may feel about NSFW content on Lemmy, this is a huge red flag for lemmy.blahaj.zone, and I would advise against people joining that instance purely based on the admins' apparent inability to properly investigate or understand the content that they federate with. Hopefully they can clarify their rules in the near future and justify why exactly this defederation happened, or reverse their decision, swallow a little bit of pride, and admit they were in the wrong.

EDIT: More admin correspondence can be found here.

Very 'my way or the highway' behavior from the blahaj.zone admins. Really not a good look.

[–] Chozo@kbin.social 26 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Yeah, not really a huge fan of Ada after this. All this because somebody got confused and refuses to say they misunderstood and move on.

Sorry to the rest of the blahaj community that's going down with the ship on this one.

[–] SuperNed@lemmynsfw.com 19 points 1 year ago

It is clear that Ada did not look at the rest of the posts in the community in question. Because the post she had an issue with stands out as an exception to the community instead of being representative of the community. This was handled well by LemmyNSFW and not well by BlahajZone.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Melpomene@kbin.social 27 points 1 year ago (10 children)

If an instance is sharing content that another instance finds problematic, then defederation makes sense. Regardless, though, it seems like lemmynsfw is doing their due diligence to handle illegal content. We all know that porn will exist... having good stewards of those communities is vital. Punishing them for providing a (legal) porn platform is counterproductive.

load more comments (10 replies)
[–] brygphilomena@lemmy.world 23 points 1 year ago

Weird. It seems like they were concerned with adorableporn.

As if adorable is a trait that only children can have.

[–] touronkai@lemmy.world 20 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Honestly, this drama every time an instance decides to defedarate needs to end. Freedom of association exists. If someone decides the don't want to be around you for whatever reason that's their right.

I just went to blahaj to check their post on this and the majority of people there seem okay with this decision, and those who aren't are free to go to a different instance.

One good thing about lemmy is that an instance defederating from yours doesn't affect you in any way. Your content isn't being taken down and can still be viewed by those who want it.

Isn't this the whole point of the fediverse? Freedom to choose by yourself what content you want instead of having a central authority decide for you and being stuck with that choice?

Yet every time something like this happens there's drama. It's absurd.

[–] Chozo@kbin.social 24 points 1 year ago (2 children)

It's not so much the fact that they defederated that's noteworthy here, it's the fact that the admin chose to do so based on a misunderstanding and refusal to admit that they were wrong about something which is concerning.

[–] SuperNed@lemmynsfw.com 19 points 1 year ago

If the instance just said, "we are noping out of all Porn and sexual based NSFW instances," then there would be no drama. It needed no justification or explanation beyond that.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›