hey folks, here's a quick update on our decision to defederate from sh.itjust.works! (and here's sh.itjust.works's side of this update)
we got in touch with the head admin over there, The Dude, and we had a pretty good chat about our concerns and reason for defederating. while immediate re-federation is just bluntly off the table with the rudimentary state of Lemmy's moderation tools, we now have a pretty good idea of the roadmap to refederating with them. we think we'll eventually be able to do this, although we don't have a timetable on when yet.
we're also now collaborating with him on how to move forward--and in the weeks and months to come we'll be pushing to expedite the process of developing some of the necessary tools. this decision has really helped us make connections that can hopefully realize those tools both on the desktop side and in apps being developed for Lemmy. we're also hoping to collaborate with other Lemmy administrators who have needs like our own, or just generally want more granular tools at their disposal.
we did also get in touch with the lemmy.world owner prior to defederating to share the concerns that prompted us to defederate[^1]--but we have not received any communication from him since it was levied, so there's no roadmap at all there as of now. we're always open to reconsidering and collaborating to end the defederation with him, but for now the earliest i can give you is "when mod tools are in a better state".
that's all for now folks. if any new significant developments take place we'll announce them as needed.
[^1]: we're only bringing this up now because it was just not useful information in the context of our announcement. it almost certainly would have been interpreted as some sort of callousness and/or brought unnecessary sectarianism and grief to him. at the end of the day he has his reasons and desires for running lemmy.world how he does, and we have ours for running Beehaw as we do. because of social and technological circumstances those are just incompatible right now, and that's fine.
Only if that rule is accurately defined. It's definitely not occuring in the link provided unless you consider "getting bullied and disagreeing with other user" transphobia.
I'm not going to engage with the other user anymore. They want freedom to insult and censor because "they're righteous". It's not an attitude that's specific to one group, mind you, but it's definitely an enlightening interaction in the context of this thread.
Authortiarianism doesn't sit well with me and I consider it an absolute no but I'm playing by the instance rules. I don't think they are but it is what it is.
We'll see how this space develops. Individual users are not relevant, anyway, but the aggregate.
Just a heads up, we have a whole philosophy post about why we aren't going to "accurately define" rules. If you're not nice to other people, you're not welcome here. There are many mods and admins, myself included, who view transphobia as definitively not nice behavior and it represents the safe space we have here, especially for minority individuals like transgender ones.
I don't particular want to engage too much on this but I guess if you think the user was being nice then you have a very inconsistent view.
My take, looking at the reactions, is that it's less so a safe space and more a place to bully dissent if you have a specific righteous attitude.
And we can look at the user's specific interactions in the Reddit link they provided or with me. Calling generic "transphobia" doesn't cut it.
If after looking at that you're 100% in agreement of their actions then revising your rules to be more honest will avoid similar conversations or encounters.
I literally do not have time to be reviewing what another user said on another platform. I'm an admin and I'm far too busy for that level of interaction right now.
Transphobia is not nice and thus not tolerated, full stop.
Debating human rights is not nice and thus not tolerated, full stop.
If you have issue with either of these statements or the fact that we have explicitly designed a system which is interpretable to prevent jerks from skirting the rules and ruining a place, then this probably isn't the place for you.
This isn't the place for me if I disagree with you in allowing bullying based on righteous attitudes.
Gotcha. All the way.
You also have no time to address the specific but enough time to come at me and "soft threaten me".
The level of circlejerk is way higher than I expected when I first started. Thanks for clearing it all up.
It's our way (of bullying) or the highway, and we will hide beyond the pretense of minority status (without even knowing who are we talking with, which is extra levels of hilarious).
I just hope you would be more honest about it. Not so disingenuous about it.
Reminder before the ban or whatever , that It was all unprompted. Toodles. Good luck with your whole enclosure.
Edit: throwback to our first interaction: https://beehaw.org/comment/208750
Guess the red flags were clear and came out pretty quickly. Again, it will serve you better to be honest about the narrow level of tolerance for even the slightest hint of disagreement. You can also eliminate all about being nice and just put your classification of who can be an asshole to whom based on their claimed status.
I think it's curation, not censorship. This server isn't a bastion of free speech, because it's made for a specific community. I have accounts on other servers, but I use this one more often because it's curated and has less spam.
The server is not a bastion for bullying/insulting pretending to be righteous either. From everything I've read from the admin what the other user did isn't it.
If you haven't looked at the user that initially replied to me, their comments here and on the Reddit link speak for themselves.
Nor should it be, ever. I respect the admins and have donated because I think they're making good decisions.