this post was submitted on 25 Apr 2025
139 points (94.8% liked)
FediLore + Fedidrama
2816 readers
95 users here now
Rules
- Any drama must be posted as an observer, you cannot post drama that you are involved with.
- When posting screenshots of drama, you must obscure the identity of all the participants.
- The poster must have a credible post and comment history before submitting a piece of history. This is to avoid sock-puppetry and witch hunts.
The usual instance-wide rules also apply.
Chronicle the life and tale of the fediverse (+ matrix)
Largely a sublemmy about capturing drama, from fediverse spanning drama to just lemmy drama.
Includes lore like how a instance got it's name, how an instance got defederated, how an admin got doxxed, fedihistory etc
(New) This sub's intentions is to an archive/newspaper, as in preferably don't get into fights with each other or the ppl featured in the drama
Tags: fediverse news, lemmy news, lemmyverse
Partners:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Defederate an instance because of a single problematic user doesn't feel right.
But also defederate an instance because their admins don't comply their own rules doesn't feel wrong.
I'd argue it wasn't defederated because of one user, it was defederating because of a fundamental disagreement in moderation policies.
The one user could've been saying anything people could find deplorable. It was that the admin chose to be hands-off about it that pulled the trigger.
Which is a good thing, in that servers are allowed to decide how they want to handle moderation, and other server owners are allowed to decide if they accept that, or if they expect the moderation will lead to continued problems of the same vein down the road. The fediverse working as intended.
Well said. It's curious how marginalized people's decisions to protect themselves are always up for debate. If someone doesn't agree with this moderation decision, cool, don't use Blahaj.
Read the "offending" text:
https://sh.itjust.works/post/36737764/18213591
This is hardly transphobia.
One of the responses in that thread had the right idea
If you read the message that way and substitute the gender component for racial equivalents, I'd love for you to explain how the message isn't racist. And I'm sure there would be plenty of "moderate whites" that would have gladly explained it to me back then too.
The end result of your line of thinking is that one cannot recognize their own ethnicity as that would be racist.
It would be like you telling an ethnic Lemkos that it's racist for them to claim they are not white.
Except this is someone else talking about a group they're not a part of. Your comment is not related to the comment question, given the context.
Edit: and no explanation of how the original statement wasn't transphobic/racist after being aubstituted....
Seperate but equal, ey buddy?
Where does it say that? Please cite the exact part that calls for "separate" approach.
Be clear and specific.
Depends - many people would say that not including transwomen in the category of "women" (without qualifier) is transphobia, and the comment literally says:
So the comment is basically arguing that "women" should only be used to mean "cis women", which some might (perhaps rightfully) consider transphobia.
Funnily enough, nobody cares about your opinion. You're welcome to make whatever decisions you want, just like the people on Blahaj can say that is transphobia.