Seriously why? Discuss.online has horrible moderation and open-signups, and Lemm.ee isn't very much better. If lemmy.world and sh.itjust.works were completely nuked to avoid the moderation headache or risks from two large open servers, why aren't lemm.ee and discuss.online banned as well?

top 14 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] SweetCitrusBuzz 4 points 23 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago) (3 children)

Whilst we're discussing instances to defederate from, I'd really love to see lemmynsfw defederated from, like a lot of porn things there's an underlying current of misogyny (and other bad stuff) coming from it and it bothers me and since this instance cannot upgrade I keep having to play whack-a-mole with each new community I come across in the All tab since I can't just block the entire instance (yet).

Edit: Plus for a 'nice' community, it doesn't make much sense to keep such an instance around ioo. It would be different if there was an underlying current of respect for the subjects there but that doesn't seem to be the case, just seems to be a mix and match for whatever people's tastes are and since we live in a patriarchal society a lot of it is going to be bad.

[–] apotheotic 2 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

I'm somewhat surprised to hear we aren't defederated from them already - I don't see any of their posts. I guess I have my settings in such a way as to not get nsfw posts

[–] SweetCitrusBuzz 1 points 6 hours ago

Last I checked we weren't. I see their stuff pop up in All, a few times though it's not frequent now I have blocked most of the ones thst have popped up.

I don't have 'NSFW' posts blocked, just blurred because unfortunately that term is used poorly and kind of scattershot on lemmy whereas on mastodon, content warnings are more nuanced here 'NSFW' is used for more things than just lewd unfortunately.

I dislike that it's not at all nuanced and there's no real content warnings and 'spoilers' don't work in every app but hey, suppose I can go request those things be added or fixed I guess.

[–] dipshit@lemm.ee 4 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

I second that one, lemmynsfw is something else entirely. Not just that it's porn but porn instances attract less savory people, especially bots and OF promoters (which are almost the same thing) so probably would be a good idea to axe them for instance health.

[–] SweetCitrusBuzz 2 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago)

Well, there is a problem with porn currently in general in that we live in a patriarchal & misogynistic society so the kind of porn that is created often reflects that, objectifying women (and perhaps other genders in different ways).

I don't see lemmynsfw being a solution to this whatsoever from what I've seen.

So yes whilst porn itself could technically be respectful and create something better, give better examples, it doesn't.

I do not see the problem necessarily with promoting OF etc as sex workers do have to make money and that is their job, however the less savory people who are attracted by the types of porn I listed above do often have problematic views, so agree with you there.

[–] Blaze@feddit.org 3 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

I can’t just block the entire instance (yet).

FYI, this feature is available on Lemmy since December 2023: https://join-lemmy.org/news/2023-12-15_-_Lemmy_Release_v0.19.0_-_Instance_blocking,_Scaled_sort,_and_Federation_Queue

[–] SweetCitrusBuzz 8 points 22 hours ago* (last edited 22 hours ago) (1 children)

Yep, but this instance plans to move off of lemmy and onto sublinks so they cannot upgrade to >=19 as it'll break a lot of their backend stuff.

[–] Blaze@feddit.org 2 points 22 hours ago

I see, makes sense to ask for defederation in this context.

[–] Gaywallet 4 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

This is probably worth a peek in moderator logs to see if they have an outsized amount of moderation. The two we defederated with happened when Lemmy was first exploding in size and were in direct response to size as well as moderation strategies and open signups policies. We don't want to cut off our community from folks on these instances but if they're causing a lot of trouble- we can certainly consider it

[–] dipshit@lemm.ee 2 points 17 hours ago

We don’t want to cut off our community from folks on these instances but if they’re causing a lot of trouble- we can certainly consider it

If that's the case and there is a desire to have community reach maybe older defederations should be re-evaluated. But I wasn't under the impression that it mattered much compared to safety of minority users and security of the instance.

[–] dipshit@lemm.ee 4 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

lemm.ee has !conservative@lemm.ee a community which is allowed to thrive by the main admin of this server. Along with all their users. Does this really seem like a good idea guys?

[–] Gaywallet 11 points 23 hours ago* (last edited 23 hours ago) (1 children)

The presence of a conservative space is not enough to warrant defederation in my opinion. We don't want to be an echo chamber. It's entirely possible to be conservative on some issues and still respect all humans. I would also argue that voting conservative in the US currently would almost certainly invalidate ones respect for self autonomy but that's a more nuanced discussion and is very US centric

[–] Walk_blesseD@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

It's entirely possible to be conservative on some issues and still respect all humans.

Is it really? Being "socially conservative" means you're just a bigot against women and/or minorities. Being "economically conservative" means you're just a bigot against the poor.

Idk, what would be an example of a conservative position that does respect all humans?

[–] Penguincoder 3 points 14 hours ago

Conservative policies generally emphasize empowerment of the individual to solve problems. https://www.studentnewsdaily.com/conservative-vs-liberal-beliefs/

That said, it's not a Broad stroke generalization that all Conservatives are alike, just as not all Liberals are alike. Don't paint the individual with the group, 100%.