The Agora

In a Mastodon instance there is unidirectional communication. I can mute someone. That seems like a function that would be useful here. Is there a way to mute their instance (nothing inbound from them to my server) but they can receive from me? Why would I ask this? The minute I treat someone as though they are irredeemable, there is no reason for them to try to achieve redemption. If what we do here, all of us, is honorable, they’ll be able to see that. To some degree this can cause… Let’s call it dissension in the ranks.

We block their noise inbound to our servers, yes. But let them see the difference between what their pundits tell them, and what actually is.

Or, I may be completely wrong. I’ve been labeled an edgelord for having this position.

I think conversations about defederating instances being the top conversation day after day is going to be a major hindrance to growth.

While many love the fedeverse and the idea, a significant amount of people just want easy to find communities they can engage with, and this non stop internal politics will drive people off them.

Make a set of rules, stick to them. It shouldn't be a community vote or discussion every day.

I'm for defederation as well. If I could block an entire instance easily I would, but that isn't an option yet.

If anyone wants to view the content on that instance, make an account. It's easy and free. There is no limit to how many instances you can join if you want to.

This may be an incredibly stupid question, but don’t we, as individual users, have the option to block/mute instances we don’t want to see content from?

If so, I think that it should be left to the individual, rather than the instance.

I don’t like what I’ve seen from them, or from lemmygrad, so I tend to just ignore it.

I think I will start a larger thread in the main community about what free speech means in the context of a somewhat anonymous internet. My current view is that while I want to promote openness and free speech that can really only work in a context where the person exercising their speech feels some necessity to use it responsibly and in an honest way. On the internet that takes a lot of self control because the social norms of every day life don't always apply because a) no one knows who you are b) there is not a human being right in front of you that you might feel empathy for c) there are no consequences to anything you say d) not all posts are even by humans. With all these taken together there is a compelling argument that speech may need to be more highly regulated on the internet than in face to face interactions. With the present instance we are discussing they may fit the mold as they have bots ( which don't have any right to free speech ) and posts which seem to be more focused on attacking people in bad faith rather than having honest discussion. I think the point I do want to make though is it's not the speech itself that I find that is the problem it's the methods of the speech : bots, and trollish attack posts; that I take issue with. I think that speech where the person is just mistaken, wrong, or I disagree with them should be allowed. I might change my mind on that in the future but that is my current stance.

So... Every bit of content I've seen from there is awful, the people seem pretty shitty and for what it's worth, I'm subscribed through lemmy.world so my opinion really shouldn't matter.

... But I don't think you should deferate them. Lemmy is new, the fediverse is new, and setting the precedent that lots of instances are willing to deferate instances basically because of political and ideological difference isn't healthy.

It sets the expectation that if you want a forum where you can speak reasonably freely, you'd better sign up somewhere where the mods and all the users share your opinions. I came to Lemmy hoping to have more personal control over how much of an echo chamber I live in, not less.