mustyOrange

The concept of having third party "trusted" attesters just screams abuse, corruption, and data selling. What would their business model be? Direct payments from browser companies? Selling "anonymized" data? What if their data security is crap it just ends up being another vector by which leaks and scams can happen? I doubt the average web user is going to understand that all of their data is going to be going thru some man in the middle when they Google something

What about competition? What if attester A has major ties with Microsoft edge and decide to block Firefox users? Or what about smaller third party apps that are made for accessibility reasons? Or hell - what about startups that are trying to enter the market?

The only reason these attesters would be trusted is because the large companies say they are. Theyd be completely at the whims of Google and Microsoft. What a stupid fucking idea with little upside for the end user

If we're following Marx's historical materialism (that society has transitions has a society, roughly being feudalism -> capitalism -> socialism -> communism), I think the next best step is a transition from capitalism to socialism is union ownership. Personally, I think worker co-ops and general syndicalism with a competing in a market for the worker owned businesses would be a great in between step that would not involve a crushingly oppressive state. The goal should be to keep it decentralized so one power structure being consumed by corruption doesn't sink the fleet

Achieving communism thru the state (called vanguard parties) isn't all that well liked by many types of socialists and communists, especially those of us in the west. A lot of us prefer to take inspiration from mid-1900s labor groups who, while not achieving socialism that we want, created infinitely better working conditions and power dynamics for working class people. Most of the people who ran those organizations were socialists/communists in and of themselves, and they often times relied more upon collective direct action than just electoralism.

Yea. I'm going to be honest, I disagree with this decision immensely. There just aren't enough posts and comments here alone to really keep my whole lemmy experience here.

The whole point of federation is to be able to branch out as I see it. Half of the communities I'm subbed to are on the places being banned, so it sorta breaks the whole point of federation to me at least. I get why mods are doing it and think it's definitely their right to do so, but as an end user, it reaaaally sucks and will likely make me make an account elsewhere as my primary.

There are a lot of assholes on the internet, and I get wanting to have a space free of that. As a trans woman of 10 years now, trust me, I have gotten harassment online and off it. For me at least, I personally err on the side of having more freedom to look into places even if that means dealing with a couple of assholes. The mods say that strangers don't walk in off the street and start trolling - from experience, I can say that is just not quite true. At some point, people really have to just roll with it and keep a positive attitude in the face of it. It's better to deal with assholes from time to time to go out and have fun rather than sit at home.

I worry that a space like this can stifle a good thing by wanting to be too thorough. Shit always slips thru cracks, and while I get that it can suck for some, heavy restriction just kills the whole thing. In some ways, it just feels like some of the decisions here are very kid-glovey. Like, at least in subs like asktrans or mtf or other parts on reddit where trolls loved to comgregate, downvotes were how the community itself self regulated trolls - we don't even have that option here. I'm not sure how I feel about such hands on moderation - it doesn't give good faith users a ton of freedom

They have the right to do so, but it probably shows I don't quite fit with the ethos of the instance.

Just took a stroll over by hexbear to see what you're talking about. To be honest, I really don't see those folks being pro-state communism. They are pretty clearly just anti-capitalist and anti-imperialist, and very much see them as being much more anarcho communism aligned than anything.

Is there widespread claims of them talking hate speech other than bitching about liberals? Hexbear seems annoying in the sense that they are extremely sarcastic and bitter. Then again, I'm a syndicalist myself, so I do agree with a lot of their points, but just hate that kind of /r/completanarchy style of board where it's clear everyone has a mix of major depression, anger, and trust issues, and everyone goes around enabling eachother.

As for the rest of your post, I don't think a message board needs to have a political ideology per se - in fact, I think it's better to not have one. The admin team itself should disagree with one another to an extent imo. Specific communities might work with one cohesive set of ideology, but the instance itself should just have general rules imo, especially since a lot of instances seem to focus mainly on general topics. Anti-hatespeech rules in general cover a lot of ground in keeping conversation genuine.

The pulse of communities is not agreement, it's discussion. It's not kindness that's needed, it's good faith. Telling a TERF or a Nazi to fuck off isn't kind, but oh well it's warranted as they don't post in good faith. I don't think the admins need to do anything more than that.

And if people start to assume mass political bias, oh well, they can start their own instance

O

Rest in piss, you ghoul

I'm really hoping this is the comment to break the downvoted record

Spez on Christian (Apollo dev)

His “joke” is the least of our issues. His behavior and communications with us has been all over the place—saying one thing to us while saying something completely different externally; recording and leaking a private phone call—to the point where I don’t know how we could do business with him.

Spez is a fucking joke