That’s a big distortion. They are accounts that advocate violence or other problematic political views. Many of them are also LGBT, but that’s not why they are on the block list.
I do think it’s problematic for a client/frontend to default-block any group of individuals or instances at all, but portrayimg it as motivated by bigotry when it’s not is pretty messed up too.
but portrayimg it as motivated by bigotry when it’s not is pretty messed up too.
Explain to me the non-bigoted reason for blocking the entire lemmy.blahaj.zone instance (which is predominantly trans), as well as blocking various terms related to queer identities. (Hint: there isn’t one, fuck this guy.)
You’re right, I should specify (although the condescension is not helping your case). They are views deemed problematic by the Tesseract dev.
I’ve had run-ins with other devs or instance admins who find my views problematic, and banned me from their community/instance/whatever. That’s unfortunate, but it’s transparent. People know who the petty tyrants are and act accordingly.
This is something different.
Having a frontend preemptively blocking users and instances based on the sole judgment of the dev is unprecedented AFAIK. We don’t need to invent intimations of bigotry to see why this is wholly bad for the platform. It goes against basic principles of transparency, openness, and free choice that the Fediverse is based on.
I believe that a front-end (client) should be a tool to access the service/network. It shouldn’t be making content decisions. If someone wants to make a block list and publish it for others to use, that’s great. If someone wants to trust an admin for content curation/blocking, well… that’s how this whole thing works. People choose or change instances based largely on that trust. But to have a tool for accessing the network also modifying the content? That’s bad, and a bad precedent.
They are accounts that advocate violence or other problematic political views.
My username appears on the list and I don’t believe my comment history aligns with this statement at all. I believe my username is just unique enough to not have another instance of it. Selection of some usernames do not appear to support their (admiralpatrick) claims of violence advocation nor extreme political views.
See, THIS is the issue I wish people would focus on. The dev of a pretty important frontend has set up a block list. They have made it the default. They have not applied a clear and equitable criteria, set up a community feedback channel, or any sort of crowdsourced input.
The modlog is open, meaning that anyone can see exactly what moderators and admins (generally) are up to. People can (and do) push back when things decisions are punitive, arbitrary, or unclear.
This is not that. You have no way to see why your username was included, or correct it if it was in error. There is no community feedback to direct what standard makes sense.
That’s the problem. It’s draconian. By manufacturing some shrill accusations of bigotry, yeah, it makes a lot more flashy posts, but doesn’t help in addressing the issue. If we can’t accurately name problems, we can’t solve them. We are just a mob on a witch-hunt.
You could have said something as innocuous and logical as trans folks have the right to defend themselves or a thousand other violence adjacent notions. Objection to violence outright is just navel gazy utopic thinking. It sounds nice but it isn’t practical reality. There is always a line.
In my experience anonymous people online don’t hide their bigotry behind an eloborate 10-point system. In this case, yes. I believe the motivation is exactly as it’s presented.
The fact that the dev clearly thinks it is a fair justification shows exactly the mindset. The problem is bad enough on its own without making up additional poorly founded accusations.
Now you’re just making up shit that I supposedly believe. The far more likely explanation for them doing this is “whatever reason they have at the time for not liking someone”.
That’s a big distortion. They are accounts that advocate violence or other problematic political views. Many of them are also LGBT, but that’s not why they are on the block list.
I do think it’s problematic for a client/frontend to default-block any group of individuals or instances at all, but portrayimg it as motivated by bigotry when it’s not is pretty messed up too.
Explain to me the non-bigoted reason for blocking the entire lemmy.blahaj.zone instance (which is predominantly trans), as well as blocking various terms related to queer identities. (Hint: there isn’t one, fuck this guy.)
Aw, you poor widdle soul. Stating they are advocating “problematic political views” is just telling on yourself, isn’t it?
You’re right, I should specify (although the condescension is not helping your case). They are views deemed problematic by the Tesseract dev.
I’ve had run-ins with other devs or instance admins who find my views problematic, and banned me from their community/instance/whatever. That’s unfortunate, but it’s transparent. People know who the petty tyrants are and act accordingly.
This is something different.
Having a frontend preemptively blocking users and instances based on the sole judgment of the dev is unprecedented AFAIK. We don’t need to invent intimations of bigotry to see why this is wholly bad for the platform. It goes against basic principles of transparency, openness, and free choice that the Fediverse is based on.
I believe that a front-end (client) should be a tool to access the service/network. It shouldn’t be making content decisions. If someone wants to make a block list and publish it for others to use, that’s great. If someone wants to trust an admin for content curation/blocking, well… that’s how this whole thing works. People choose or change instances based largely on that trust. But to have a tool for accessing the network also modifying the content? That’s bad, and a bad precedent.
You didn’t see the Tesseract admin’s deleted rant then huh.
Not sure. I only saw this.
The TL;DR is TL
Oh you did. Hmm. Thanks for posting the link, I thought it was lost by deletion.
My username appears on the list and I don’t believe my comment history aligns with this statement at all. I believe my username is just unique enough to not have another instance of it. Selection of some usernames do not appear to support their (admiralpatrick) claims of violence advocation nor extreme political views.
See, THIS is the issue I wish people would focus on. The dev of a pretty important frontend has set up a block list. They have made it the default. They have not applied a clear and equitable criteria, set up a community feedback channel, or any sort of crowdsourced input.
The modlog is open, meaning that anyone can see exactly what moderators and admins (generally) are up to. People can (and do) push back when things decisions are punitive, arbitrary, or unclear.
This is not that. You have no way to see why your username was included, or correct it if it was in error. There is no community feedback to direct what standard makes sense.
That’s the problem. It’s draconian. By manufacturing some shrill accusations of bigotry, yeah, it makes a lot more flashy posts, but doesn’t help in addressing the issue. If we can’t accurately name problems, we can’t solve them. We are just a mob on a witch-hunt.
I noticed that they also banned some accounts that have 0 interactions (comments and posts) which is kinda stupid lol
(Example of an account: Axolotlqueen)
You could have said something as innocuous and logical as trans folks have the right to defend themselves or a thousand other violence adjacent notions. Objection to violence outright is just navel gazy utopic thinking. It sounds nice but it isn’t practical reality. There is always a line.
Guessing you checked the list for your name again right before posting this lol
Why would you believe that reasoning? This guy is your friend or something?
Nope, I’m just a rational person who doesn’t automatically buy into hysteria.
Wow you’re so much smarter and better than everyone, you’re so cool(🖕)
Believing without questioning some shit you read on the Internet is the last thing I would call rational
happy cake day!
Thanks!
In my experience anonymous people online don’t hide their bigotry behind an eloborate 10-point system. In this case, yes. I believe the motivation is exactly as it’s presented.
The fact that the dev clearly thinks it is a fair justification shows exactly the mindset. The problem is bad enough on its own without making up additional poorly founded accusations.
Now you’re just making up shit that I supposedly believe. The far more likely explanation for them doing this is “whatever reason they have at the time for not liking someone”.
This is the thread you are replying to. If you are discussing something else, I’m afraid you’ll have to specify it.
Disagreeing with your naivity is not the same as agreeing with everyone else who disagrees with you.
Take all the time you need.
What is it motivated by?