@ernest how do I report a Magazin on kbin.social ? There is a usere called "ps" who is posting to his own "antiwoke" Magazin on kbin.social. Please remove this and dont give them a chance to etablish them self on kbin.social. When I report his stuff it will go to him because he is the moderator of the magazin? Seems like a problem. Screenshot of the "antiwoke" Magazin /sub on kbin.social. 4 Headlines are visible, 2 exampels: "Time to reject the extrem trans lobby harming our society" "How to end wokeness" #Moderation #kbin #kbin.social 📎
edit: dont feed the troll, im shure ernest will delet them all when he sees this. report and move on.
Edit 2 : Ernest responded:
"I just need a little more time. There will likely be a technical break announced tomorrow or the day after tomorrow. Along with the migration to new servers, we will be introducing new moderation tools that I am currently working on and testing (I had it planned for a bit later in my roadmap). Then, I will address your reports and handle them very seriously. I try my best to delete sensitive content, but with the current workload and ongoing relocation, it takes a lot of time. I am being extra cautious now. The regulations are quite general, and I would like to refine them together with you and do everything properly. For now, please make use of the option to block the magazine/author."
❤
Streisand effect for sure. There seems to be run of these types of posts in the fediverse lately. People don’t seem to realize that sometimes they’re better off letting these situations take their natural course (and die), and not intervene unless it grows beyond manageability.
So here's my issue here.
This guy is clearly not a small issue. He's being as loud and obnoxious as possible.
If there's nothing in place to deal with one huge troublemaker, what's to stop a dozen who come to Kbin and start making hateful communities?
My concern at this point is that Kbin itself gets defederated because the other instances don't think it's taking moderation seriously.
#1 rule on the internet: don't feed the trolls. Downvote them, block them, move on. They're not here to engage in good faith.
As someone who genuinely does enjoy trolling on rare occasion, I think you misunderstand what a troll is. Speaking sincerely held ideas from across the political spectrum does not make someone a troll. A troll is insincere yet playful. That's not to say I shouldn't be blocked by anyone who wants to block me, but it's not for being a troll in this context.
No such thing as free speech on these "niche" social platforms. Pitchforks and torches, if this was real-life they'd be throwing you in a pond tied up and waiting for you to float...
14 day old account on its home instance, its only posting activity is within this thread, and both comments are low effort outrage farming with images.
The emotionally evocative hyperbole in the second sentence was pretty good though. Is it your own material? If so, can you write some more persecution porn for us? You don't need images as your crutch, you've got some real writing talent going for you here.
A picture is worth a thousand words and just sums up this toxic thread and witch hunt.
Nah, it's just your addiction to outrage farming on Twitter/Facebook showing. :)
I chuckled at least. A troll's motivation for the rise that they seek is largely inconsequential, as is the delivery mechanism. ;) Let's not go and disenfranchise the majority of the internet's trolling population with narrow typecasting!
While we're on the topic of trolling, are you familiar with Sealioning?
It's a rhetorical question, no need to respond. Someone else might learn something they didn't know before today. :)
Wisdom ^
So you advocate your own posting taking its natural course and dying off? I can think of a way you can hurry up this process.
Dude, he's mocking you all and you don't even get it. The more you scream the more attention you're bringning to his magazine.
You people are hopless.
Other people are not as stupid as you think. But the question between not giving it attention to challenge it and possibly giving it food to fester or not giving it attention and also not challenging it is not easily answered. Looking at the repulsive backlash, drawing attention to it was the right choice. Sure, some more people might flock there, but the vast majority strongly disapproves and now knows that kbin.social (unsurprisingly) has awful people on it as well.
I'd rather nip it in the bud. You're just letting things fester.
I don’t disagree with the sentiment, but it will become impossible to accomplish, practically speaking, as the fediverse grows. There’s only so much that can be done with volunteers, and it’s not like armies of paid staffers work much better (as we’ve seen the major tech corps try to do).
There is a sociological aspect to this, numerous studies have confirmed the effects of highlighting bad actors. There’s a copycat effect (as studies on mass shootings show) as well as what we call the Streisand effect. Both inadvertently encourage others to perpetuate the behaviour rather than serving to limit it.
Where does this sentiment come from? Reddit for the most part already does this. Twitter before Elon showed up did this. Most modern sites already do this
The only place I can think of where this is commonplace is 4chan, because they don't moderate.
Yes, highlighting bad actors over a course of time can be problematic. But the point in this case is the point out that we don't have the tools to deal with said bad actor. The tools that other sites have. It's not being said in vain, the goal is to make aware that something needs to be done so that people don't even see the bad actor to bring attention to them.
There is a purpose to the current efforts. I think everyone understands that constantly bringing attention to them will do no good, but the goal here is to bring attention to tools that are needed, so that it doesn't happen again, or at the very least to this extent.
You’d might be conflating my comment with someone else? I’m not against moderating. I just think it’s a bad idea to blast these communities or users onto the front page when they’re found.
No example has been able to squash out bad actors and unwanted content completely. That’s the impossible task I’m referring to. Neither volunteers, nor paid staff have accomplished this for any site. In all your example there are still areas flying under the radar.
As such, it’s better to not inadvertently fan the flames when you find the fire, don’t make their soapbox bigger. Instead put it out quietly so it doesn’t harm anyone else.
Examples are good when trying to point out a problem actually exists and not have certain people trying to tone it down and make it not seem like as big a problem as it is, despite even the devs acknowledging there's a problem.
The final point is more tools are being worked on, the thread did do something, so trying to argue a point that would basically have prevented it just seems...poor taste.
Everything you’re talking is perception, friend. You chose to take my comment that way. The dev tools were being worked on long before this post.
As I said before, I’m not making this up, the phenomenon is studied and the effect is proven.
Allowing bad actors to advertise themselves is highlighting them. Banning them and deleting their communities is the opposite of highlighting them.
So your solution is to just give up and let hate fester? When has appeasement ever worked?
Not at all. I think you're conflating what I said with someone else. I’m only suggested we don’t inadvertently promote this content by creating a front-page post denouncing it.
The point about it being impossible to accomplish is about perfection. It’s a wack-a-mole game. Since this content and people will always be there until found, it’s better to not give them more of an audience.
No site will ever perfectly remove objectionable content. It’s one reason why the upvote downvote system is so valuable for a site like this.
You can't avoid hate and hope it recedes. You have to take it directly head on and stomp it out immediately.
If they decide to move elsewhere, then follow them there and continue rooting them out.
Just "letting people decide" is useless and will only enable them to continue.
Agreed, I think you’re still conflating things I never said. Nothing was in the “let the people decide” vein.
Thats why I think it’s better to silently remove them rather then making posts saying “look at this bad guy right there”.
I think the problem is that at the moment, the system is new enough that there's no way to get this sort of content removed. Hence this front page post. It's not about calling attention to the magazine, it's about calling attention to the entire issue..
The biggest thing im afraid of happening to Kbin/the lemmyverse is that it will end up like Ruqqus, especially now that it seems to be swamped with trolls.
I expect that instances will get more locked down, perhaps those of us on an instance can vouch for new users who might join, but I can't see how a volunteer admin could police a million user instance. I used to run a 10k user discussion site and while that wasn't a fulltime job it was still a giant pain in the ass at times. If we can get in a steady state where an instance has a core of active posters and lurkers then that seems better than infinite growth.
That then surely leads to federated instances that each represent the tolerances of their admin(s) and they presumably federate or not with other instances with similar sensibilities.
In the end the nazis will get their nazi instance and federate with likeminded types - they get defederated everywhere else and wont really be a problem (maybe for the FBI). (Though I'm not certain that all internet nazis truly are, i think there a group of trolls that get their kicks from being controversial and will get no joy by being surrounded by people who accept them)
The problems are going to be in the gray areas. For example, the argument that trans people don't deserve to exist... I find that abhorrent, but there are people who will happily say that on TV, and there are CEOs of $44B social networks that appear to agree. Some instances will tolerate that on the grounds of free speech and others will not, then the admins are left trying to decide what's grounds for defederation.
However in my limited experience, the thing that kills projects like this is too much navel gazing. There will always be some trolling and noise, but if the remaining users expend all their energy talking about it then the whole thing collapses in on itself. I feel like this is starting to happen on reddit where lots of subs are consumed by meta, but the best thing we can do here is get out and create active communities.
The problem is that by that point it will have grown beyond manageability. You know the "Nazi bar" saying.
There's a bunch of people (who are Nazis) and they seem cool, quiet, well spoken, just having a drink. And they bring their friends and those guys are cool too. Then those guys bring their friends and those guys are less cool and now normal people don't drink at the bar anymore and you look around and it's a Nazi bar and you can't make them leave or they'll start causing "problems". So. I'm all for just using the brutal hammer of censorship.
It's not a free speech platform and no one ever said it was.
Hate speech is not part of free speech anyways. Fuck nazis. Everyone that gets offended by that can get fucked as well.
Something else that occurred to me. If someone posted something that was pro-woke in /r/conservative or on Parler or any of those other apps, they'd get banned immediately. "Free Speech" only seems to be a concern when it's right-wingers posting on left-leaning forums, never the reverse.
I think that taking the free speech argument at face value in the present day just means you're gullible.
Reminds me of a quote by Nazi minister of propaganda Joseph Goebbels from 1935, after the Nazis took power:
-- source
Rough translation:
For fascists at least talking about freedom of speech and the like is just another tool they try to wield in their quest to gain power, nothing else.
I think hardcore conservatives simply don’t have an inherent sense of empathy. That’s why they don’t really care about the victims of a crime, disaster, etc. until it happens to them personally. They do not have the perspective to put themselves in another person’s shoes.
It’s NOT an intelligence issue. It’s easy to write people off as stupid, but that’s not the case. For them, being unable to think with empathy is as natural as being unable to see infrared light.
They’ve figured out that making themselves appear to be victims can sometimes make people listen, but they can’t fully explain why. That lack of understanding is why they don’t see the hypocrisy in banning people from their platforms, but then whining loudly when they’re treated the same way.
This is all just guesswork, but it’s the best explanation I’ve been able to come up with that doesn’t make my head explode.
Cross out the "hardcore", lack of empathy is very much a core part of conservatism no matter which side of conservatism, social | fiscal, you lean into and by how much. If you're socially conservative you want every social aspect to stay as it is which proves inherently a lack of empathy. If you're fiscally conservative you want monetary value to stay as is (in terms of inflation and cost-cutting etc.) no matter whom it hurts (as long as it doesn't hurt you, of course).
Which is why I personally think it actually is (also) an intelligence issue, because the people that are not socially conservative and only fiscally conservative usually vote for the party of big government and military spending (R) which goes against anything fiscally conservative and as a "cool" side effect also proves to be detrimental to social values of different people and groups.
You probably know the quote by George Carlin, as its a told tale as old as day. I think the quote nicely illustrates the voting game in the US.
With the very rare exception, absolutely.
It depends on your definition of free speech, the US constitution does consider it part of free speech.
The US constitution also considers free speech a right that protect a websites right not to repeat hate speech, not a users "right" to force a website to host their speech. In the constitutions view of the world free speech is protection against the government, not a tool to force other people to host your speech.
What is the relevance of the US constitution? This is not a US platform.
It's one definition that is different than the definition that had been provided in the parent comment.
I'm no Nazi, but I get your point. What you don't realize is once the bar kicks the Nazis out, they start their own bar, and there their numbers grow. A more intelligent approach is to rationally talk with them, as Daryl Davis has with KKK members.
Kumbaya
You can't reason a person out of a stance they didn't reason themselves into.
For instance: How would you even begin to reason with someone that believes in demons? Where could any discussion even go if one side can waive away anything they don't agree with by claiming it is a trick from a demon?
They want the bar for the traffic. They can start their own bar but the extreme nature of it deters people from even setting foot.
They want to sit in places that look neutral or even friendly.