Beehaw is a community of individuals and therefore does not have any specific political affiliation. At this point in time, we do not know what the political leanings of most of our users are. I would suspect that many of them would identify as progressive because we are explicitly a safe space for minorities. What we stand for and the space that we’re trying to make is compatible with many forms of politics. Unfortunately some political groups build themselves around and choose to elevate or tolerate hate speech. These are the only political groups that we are incompatible with. If any of it was unclear in any of the other posts, I will restate it all here. Beehaw does not tolerate hate speech. Beehaw is an explicitly safe space. We center and promote kindness because that is what we see and love in the world.
Some of the instances that we have chosen to defederate with have explicit political stances and ideologies. Their political stance and ideology had nothing to do with the choice to defederate. The choice to defederate was based on the amount of hate speech present on the instance and/or explicitly endorsing it. Since hate speech is not controlled on the instances that these users come from, we cannot expect them to change their behavior when participating on our instance. While users may exist on some of these platforms who do not spread hate speech, the choice to defederate is made to reduce the burden on our moderators and admins. Occasionally these instances or users from these instances will point their fingers at Beehaw and make claims about our political leanings or whether certain kinds of politics are banned. To be explicitly clear, the only kind of politics that are banned here are those which enable hate speech such as fascism.
Politics on the internet
Many, if not most discussions of politics on the internet are poisoned by virtue signaling. When they are not poisoned by virtue signaling, discussions are often just ways to vent emotions. I believe the reason for this is the platforms themselves and the incentives to engage online. On the internet I can adjust my level of anonymity. An adjustable level of anonymity allows me to change how I speak to others while simultaneously mitigating or removing any consequences to myself. This of course varies based on the platform and what I’m attempting to accomplish, but in the context of speaking with others on the internet, I can be relatively consequence free to say whatever I want on most major platforms. Particularly negative or hateful behavior might cause me to be banned off of a platform, but through the use of technology or other means, I can simply create another account (or migrate to another platform) and continue the same speech. In malicious terms, I do not have to worry about managing someone else’s emotions or my connection to them.
In real life, on the other hand, it is not as easy to pass myself off as someone else. I must be much more aware of how I speak to others because consequences can be much more dire. When discussing politics with others, I may alienate them or myself and so I may choose to be more open to listen rather than soapboxing. The people I’m interacting with may be a regular part of my life and may be people I have come to respect. Understanding how they think might be vitally important to maintaining or improving our connection.
I am presenting the internet and real life as two ends of a spectrum but it is more complicated than that. There are people who are very visible and tied to their identities on the internet just as there are people in real life who use false identities created to mask their true identity. Interactions vary in level of connection, platform, and who happens to know who we are in other spaces on the internet. There are plenty of people who talk on the internet about politics with the explicit goal of changing the minds of others. Some of these individuals are not using this as an outlet to manage their own emotions. These generalizations are presented in this way because I need to talk about these patterns in the context of the platform Lemmy. I’m asking everyone on this platform to be wary of anyone who focuses on politics but is unable to explain the issues themselves. They are probably trying to deceive you, are virtue signaling, or projecting their own insecurities and you should be skeptical of their approach.
I would encourage all of you to think about incentives when presented with political drama online. It is easy to get engaged because politics has a direct and often scary effect on our lives. In this community, it is not difficult to find individuals who are regularly marginalized by politicians. Especially for these minorities, it is completely valid to get emotionally invested in politics and I would personally encourage doing so on some level, but we need to think carefully about the other parties present in a conversation and whether they are willing to listen or incentivized to do so. For the people who are hiding behind anonymity and posting to vent their emotional frustrations with the system they are likely not invested in the community we are growing here and it may be appropriate and healthy to ignore or disengage with these folks.
Forking
It is in this political context that forking from the main Lemmy development has been presented. People are quick to point to potential upsides of forking, but the upsides are an after thought presented as a means to bolster or justify forking. These justifications are for what is ultimately a moral issue. The question at hand is whether it is moral to use a platform developed by someone who has committed acts which one deems immoral. To anyone posing this question, I would ask them to consider what other technology they use every day and to trace the roots back to each invention along the path to today’s day and age. The world has a colonialist history, rife with violence and immoral behavior. Unless you retreat the woods and recreate technologies yourself from scratch, it’s impossible to live in a modern society without benefiting from technology built on countless dead bodies in history.
We do not have the technical expertise to create a new tool from scratch - all we can do is leverage tools that already exist to create communities like this. At the time we created this instance, the service we decided on was Lemmy. We did so with awareness of discussions around the politics of the main instance and developers. I think we’ve done a decent job outlining what we intend to do with this instance and explicitly made strong stances against hate speech and other behavior we do not agree with, including where we disagree with them. When taken in the context of computing in general, these political leanings are also not unique in their social and political harm as compared to some of the tech giants out there. The same is true in comparison to some of the famous tech inventors and innovators; in comparison to the history of computer technology; in comparison to the exploitation and problematic mining of rare earth minerals used in technology; in comparison to the damages we cause to the earth to create the energy used to power our servers. We can follow this path of thinking back all that we want to, and ultimately it’s just not a particularly fruitful discussion to zero in on whether the political leaning of the main developers and instance are in perfect alignment with what we want to accomplish. We are not explicitly endorsing their viewpoint by using their software and we are not tied to using this software forever.
I cannot stress enough how much bandwidth has been taken up by these discussions in recent days. It been brought up as frequently as every few hours across Discord, Matrix, inbox replies, comment replies, new threads, and other forms of communication. We’re currently dealing with a lot of other issues like keeping the server running, expanding to add more communities, moderating the communities amidst a huge influx of users posting and reply content from other instances, managing expenses, optimizing our server, planning for the future, and so much more. We cannot entertain philosophical discussions on all of the wonderful things we ‘could do’ when we’re struggling to keep up with what we’re already currently doing. We have not yet received a serious proposal for a fork which details operational needs when it comes to the maintenance, support, and resources needed to accomplish and maintain it. Simply put we do not believe a fork is necessary at this time.
Unless you retreat the woods and recreate technologies yourself from scratch, it’s impossible to live in a modern society without benefiting from technology built on countless dead bodies in history.
This makes complete sense, I also think open source and federated platforms like this give users the most autonomy from the creators of the software when compared to other platforms. I do wish there was the ability to port users and communities across instances, though, kinda like you can do with mastodon. I understand that would be hard for the developers to create, but I think it would help with the creation of a truly free platform.
Furthermore, I think some of the concern around some primary instances is a little overblown, as most of the larger ones have their own policies against bigotry and fascism. However, I understand that the type moderation between instances differs, and that is the best part about federated services.
Is it possible to have a list of de-federated instances from Beehive? I think it may be good for transparency, even if I am pretty satisfied about how things are being done here!
Any advice on how I can remove beehaw from my all feed in Jabora?
I find these types of environments produce echo chambers where suddenly I’m not even able to give my perspective on gender as a nonbinary person because it goes against some mainstream perspective.
I have other reasons, but yeah 😝 Fuck mods trying to control politics, I want free discussions, otherwise I’d just stay on Reddit lmao!
If anyone can give me instructions on how to remove beehaw that’d be greatly appreciated.
–edit–
Also if anyone can recommend any instances for open discussion!!
Regardless of the current situation, I think the option in general to “unsubscribe” from an entire instance could be useful. I know we can create our own instances and defederate, but not everyone has the skills, money, etc. to be able to do that.
Same, I chose Beehaw in particular because of its stance on providing a bigotry free platform… that being said as a federated service you have many options for a “home instance” but if you still want to interact with a community on another instance you will still be subject to that communities and instances policies. As a lot of people like yourself have chosen Beehaw for its safe space nature, you may miss out on communities you would feel welcomed in if you were to completely swear off Beehaw, although you do have the freedom to choose that.
I am new to Lemmy and also to Beehaw. Does defederation mean that we can’t load comments/threads/communities from defederated servers via Beehaw (and vice versa for users of instances Beehaw has defederated from)?
If federation works the same on here as it does on Mastodon, then yes. When you defederate a server you can’t see their users, communities, posts, comments, etc and they can’t see yours 🙂
I just made a lemmy.world account after hearing about the mods on lemmy.ml, but when I posted a picture of winnie the pooh, the comment was deleted, and I was marked as a bot. And it sounds like beehaw’s not open for new registrations.
I’m fine with them being communists. I’m also fine with them not moderating things. I’m not fine with them actively denying genocides or denying repressive facts about historical or present socialist regimes.
Generally, it’s a good rule of thumb to see if people list things like worker ownership over the means of production and the abolition of the owning class, or a bunch of authoritarian regimes to judge if they’re keener on the communism or the authoritarianism.
It’s honestly hard not to feel sorry about them after the Korean War. A lot of pro-NK sentiments are linked to anti-US and anticapitalist sentiments, seeing them as the desperate victim of invasion.
I’m not a fan of them, there is plenty they are doing wrong, but they’re also far from the comical villains they’re seen as by Western media. You know, “NK declare unicorns exist”, " everyone has to have Kim’s haircut " and also “you get executed for having his haircut”, “political rival executed by anti-aircraft gun” and then later photographed alive.
The answer is somewhere in the middle and in many ways a product of their absurd, tragic history.
The question at hand is whether it is moral to use a platform developed by someone who has committed acts which one deems immoral.
The question for me is actually is it ethical to contribute to his repo.
I think my idea is maybe the contributors are seperate from the code. A fork happens when code is rejected because a maintainer does something unpopular. Wait for that to happen. FOSS has a history of dealing with uncomfortable maintainers, like Linus.
Thanks for taking the time to write long thoughtful posts explaining the admin thinking, rather than just “we have decided X, live with it” posts.
It seems entirely appropriate to me for the admins to set the tone of this instance, through explicit rules, through deciding who to add as a user and who to make a mod, and through deciding which other instances to federate with. Anybody who disagrees can always start their own instance. That you’re opening a coffee shop doesn’t mean anyone can come in without shirt and shoes (bad analogy like all analogies).
It’s entirely possible that I (older white male with plenty of income raised in a homegeneous white suburb) have some opinions that would be appropriate on one of those defederated instances but not here. I can always make an account over there if I feel the need to post those opinions. Likewise, if someone on a defederated instance wants to post here and can behave themselves according to the house rules, they can create an account here. This doesn’t seem like a huge burden to impose on anyone.
During a long career as a software developers, just about every successful fork I can recall came about because a majority of a project’s developers (not its users!) decided they had to leave a dysfunctional project. Until/unless Lemmy gets to that point it seems pretty silly to me to talk about forking the codebase.
This is what I have failed to understand about people seemingly worried about this instance wanting to be a safe space. If they do not like it, they can just jump to another instance.
“Safe space” also doesn’t have to mean milquetoast or self-censoring. I’m new to this particular community, but I expect there are all manner of topics that any of us could discuss passionately without being jerks. Reading the description of the founding ethos of this community suggested only that I make a commitment to being decent and that I respect the dignity and celebrate the validity of others who aren’t like me. I don’t see anything in there about restricting vigorous discussions about tax policy or guns or whatever the day’s hot topic is as long as you’re decent about it and start from the assumption that people can disagree in good faith.
I respect your philosophy and believe you should do what is best for yourself and the community. Also want to point out that by forking, you might be closing the door to allies and those who fall through the cracks due to the registration system.
For example, I initially tried to make beehaw.org my home base, but maybe I didn’t include enough info in my registration statement, because I’m still not approved. This was what I wrote:
“I’m signing up for Beehaw because Reddit is essentially killing the 3rd-party app I use to browse reddit (Reddit is Fun) and I refuse to use their mediocre official app. I want to join this community because it seems diverse and polite, and if Reddit is preventing me from using their site the way I’ve been doing for the last 9-ish years then I’d rather go elsewhere. As to what I can contribute, hopefully add to the conversations here and be a part of this growing community. The wonderful thing about Reddit is that for the past 9 years I’ve been a user, there was always someone who could answer my questions on virtually any topic, and sometimes the roles are flipped and I’d be lucky enough to be able to provide answers to a random stranger instead. I’ve shared mods I made for games on the site and participated in gaming and political discussions, but otherwise mostly spent my time scrolling through the news and enjoyed reading discussions on various topics. I’m sure you guys have received an influx of Reddit refugees recently, and like them I hope to make Beehaw my new home.”
Like I said, maybe not enough info, but I believe my politics and philosophy jives with the Beehaw community. Now, getting rejected (or put in limbo) is not a big deal because I can still participate freely from lemmy.world, and most of my subscriptions are to Beehaw instances (news, politics, gaming) so in all honesty it doesn’t make a big difference. But the point is that if Beehaw was forked, then someone like me would be cut off from this community. As a minority myself and someone who considers themself an ally, I want to reiterate that you should do what you believe is best for the community and yourself. I just wanted to give my own (biased) opinion on the matter.
in all probability it just got lost in our sea of applications (our backlog is 4.5k)–we know for a fact we’ve left a bunch of very good people on read because of the limitations of what we’re working with and you’re probably one of them
I do not think a fork of Lemmy would necessarily break AP federation with your instance. Heck, we even have Mastodon and Friendica accounts post and reply here. Eventually smartphone apps like Jerboa would stop working if the codebase would deviate too much, though (unless app devs start supporting both Lemmy and the fork).
Regarding your application, I am reading a lot of stuff about Reddit (and you on Reddit) in your post and maybe that was not the kind of answer the team behind Beehaw was looking for. No offense intended, BTW.
I would love to have this as a generalized text to be shared between instances. I’d use the general mood of this post as basis for the rules for all my instances. Maybe on GitHub, which then can be edited through pull requests and discussed.
I originally joined Beehaw, but decided to run my own instance because why not. I still prefer subscribing the communities in Beehaw just due to this way of thinking. I hope the moderation works for you and doesn’t get too bad.
I am curious of this. Just trying to get some perspective. You say some political “parties” facilitate hate speech. I guess I am curious how tight that belt squeezes.
For context, I am pretty far to the left politically. Farther left than any of the parties in the US. But some would associate the entire Republican party to facilitated hate speech. While a large bunch, if not most of loud ones on the internet do right now, a lot of them that I know personally, hate Trump and agree with most liberal social issues but are just against tax dollars being used for certain things. “Fiscally conservative” as they say. Conversations are fine with these people, we just don’t agree.
You are allowed to do whatever you want on your server and I can understand not wanting to pay to host something that disagrees with your values and beliefs. I am just trying to understand how this goes. If someone was having a peaceful discussion about a political non hateful subject without any hate in it, would they be removed purely because they revealed they are a Republican?
I understand the possibility of that hypothetical scenario gets lower every day unfortunately, especially on the internet.
I’ve explicitly stated that we are focused on the hate speech and only the hate speech. I don’t care what political affiliation you have. I only care if you’re spreading hate speech.
“Unfortunately some political groups build themselves around and choose to elevate or tolerate hate speech. These are the only political groups that we are incompatible with.”
I guess this is where it got muddy for me. Thank you for the response.
A few years ago it turned out a very promising python documentation library was using another library for a core aspect of the docstring comment parsing subsystem. I don’t remember the names of either of these two, but as it turns out, the person who wrote the docstring comment parsing subsystem was someone who liked using the Nazi-Facing-Swastika as his repeating background image on his site and as textual glyphs to denote things like list items. He claimed it was everyone being too stupid to know he was using it in an eastern context, but he had an email like firstname_lastname88@gmail or whatever.
The point I made then is that even if FirstName LastName was running into a culture-shock situation, and even if they just happened to like the number 88 - or maybe they were born in 88 - there was simply no way I wanted to tie myself or my employer to that person. Nobody is going to extend any grace.
I guess I don’t even think that is necessarily a bad thing. Why should people stanning genocidal authoritarian regimes be extended grace? Is it only okay if they can give us something, like a nazi scientist building space rockets? Is it simply because they gave you something you can’t get anywhere else without paying more than you’d want to? I actually don’t have an answer for this. I felt fine telling PossibleNazi88 No, and AccidentallyLinkedCompositionalLibraryAuthor Sorry, I'll pass, and in large part that is because Sphinx does exist and I can use it, even if I’d prefer not to. But what if this library were the only one? Would I just hold my nose and use it anyway?
Same with Lemmy - can I get it in a different package? A similar fediverse community package, without the gross genocide cooties all over it? This is a practical question; maybe this is reason enough to want to host a kbin instance over lemmy, eventually.
But philosophically: What if the next fediverse community package is from a Patriotic American, who has no problem with all the first peoples genocides and chattel slavery history because they believe in America so much that it’s an intrinsic part of their identity?
It sucks because I want to make everything better, and I believe that to be true of Beehaw administration for sure as well, but navigating this shit is hard and even if you’re principled you’re probably only principled insofar as you’re aware.
Conversely, doing the thing you know to be wrong just because the alternative is hard and maybe impossible isn’t good either. But maybe you can use the genocide-fan’s product to do more good than harm? But now you’re back to nazi scientists making moon rockets, and nobody is happy.
I guess I’m just rambling while I admire the problem.
Something else to throw in to the mix: a lot of similar questions have likely been faced by developers to the FOSS community: “What if my library is used in abhorrent ways?” “Should I restrict usage of my software to ensure it’s used in morally good ways?” etc.
In my experience, not too many people seem to take issue with FOSS in these ways–any usage of the software is entirely put on the person using it, and the FOSS developer is not held accountable for it. If we apply the same logic here, I would posit that the usage of FOSS developed by a morally questionable developer should have a similar dissociation applied.
I’ll also challenge your analogy of nazi scientists. Hiring someone who has committed humanitarian atrocities is quite different from using FOSS produced by morally questionable developers. In the latter case, this person is not receiving any significant benefit (one could argue publicity, but the value of that seems debatable and minimal compared to a salary). A closer analogy would be something like: is it morally acceptable to make use of the code that those nazi scientists produced for an authoritarian regime? Still a complicated question, but more related to the issue at hand, I think.
I don’t really get why the authors ideals and beliefs matter. For for-profit stuff, it does matter because I don’t want to be supporting someone with that lifestyle or someone who actively wants me dead.
But for the open source stuff, he’s not making any money off of me. And it’s pretty safe since other people are vetting the code and they’ll complain if something malicious is happening. In other words, since I am not contributing to the developer, his ideals don’t really matter to me
The authors ideals and beliefs are relevant, because those guided their decision to make a Free and Open Source, federated alternative to reddit, and avoid capitalist modes of funding (like integrating ads or other exploitative methods). That’s why this existed long before reddit was extorting through their API.
I definitely agree and feel with the arguments you have here. It’s a challenging issue to resolve. On one hand there’s the practical Rock of “transitioning to another asset and engaging in the practical burden that shifting gears brings,” and in this circumstance, that would come with the extra caveat of trying to commit to that transition during a busy period as is. On the other hand is the moral Hard Place of “you’re working with an asset actively developed by someone or something with known issues—are you willing to accept, and to some degree associate, with that?” I don’t feel like there’s a clear-cut path that’s both morally bright and practically realistic, and it’s not the kind of thing that makes me dance with joy.
If nothing else, it’s good to respect that we have a dilemma in our hands. Whichever way the community decides to collectively stand, both in the short and long term, I’m happy that we’re having this conversation at all. I think it’s important to acknowledge what we have and have a meaningful discussion around it. Putting our heads in the sand and pretending it’s a non-issue at best delays the issue and allows it to fester.
—
navigating this shit is hard and even if you’re principled you’re probably only principled insofar as you’re aware.
That’s a great point I almost forgot to highlight. Even if I think I got my things sorted in such a way that I think my hands are clean in something, I typically end up finding out of nowhere that something down the line has some issues behind it that I need to resolve somehow. It’s a process that doesn’t seem to end, and it can feel exhausting sometimes.
You’ve captured my own confusing and conflicting thoughts as well.
I have so far loved my experience here (just been a few days) beehaw is exactly what is what to see in an online community
But despite the federated nature of lemmy the code ultimately is (so I’m learning in this thread!) currently in the hands of people who are the opposite of beehaw. That’s a difficult pill to swallow.
If there were ever a row between the devs of Lemmy and Beehaw, could they retaliate against us in some manner using the code?
I’m struggling to think of an example of this, but maybe something like forcing a “captcha” before every comment submission that requires you to type in something like “Long Lives Chairman Mao” or something like that. It is clearly antithetical to what Beehaw ascribes, but would be ultimately powerless to stop.
Excellent response. I joined Beehaw because I liked Beehaw’s rules and philosophy. Kinda reminds me of Mozilla’s in beta Mastodon instance. Beehaw as an entity is completely separate from its technological roots and this post eloquently shows that.
I hope this eases any political harassment along those lines.
I don’t pretend to change anything of how this place works, specially considering it’s federated and, as you say, presumably different spaces can be forked and “set up their own rules”.
I remain, however quite keen to see if the “no hate speech” is a consistent thing or simply a “hate is ok against the right targets” and “being on the other side of X issue is hate speech” (e.g.: any controversial topic such as being against a particular war, being in favor of/against political party X, expressing views opposed to government policies, not sharing a specific view by the demographic majority of the site (Usually US/UK/AUS)).
Ideally, I can set up something where I can get exposure to many views and go here and there without having to feel I’m in X circlejerk and the narrative is packet Y, that comes with all these predetermined views in this overton window.
In a way, the more I have access to, the better. Because I can move from side to side learning about the others. Obviously, this view is not shared by many and thet would gladly censor 75% of the space to preserve the right way, claiming it’s “moderation”. I don’t disagree on moderation but I think that we’re too interfered at this point that we don’t even see how little room we have for discussion (which then creates very narrow discussions in different niches).
In any case, sorry for the stream of consciousness. Excited to see how all this works and hopefully I’m able to participate and gain insights from a wide array of perspectives in a wide descentralized network.
As is stated elsewhere, we are explicitly intolerant of the intolerant. Hate speech in response to hate speech is perfectly acceptable - calling Nazis out is cool and correct.
Yeah. Don’t want you to feel the need to justify yourself. I appreciate the efforts regardless of whether we end up agreeing on moderation policies (and I think not agreeing on everything and coexisting is awesome). Was just adding my 2 cents, which I feel will be different from many.
I obviously have my concerns on the “call out a nazi” because holding the wrong ™ opinion will get you called a nazi but that’s just par for the course. I don’t particularly need a safe space and it would be bad (imho) if ALL spaces were so but, again, presumably the ability of a descentralized network is that, that everyone will always be able to launch their instance with their rules to mitigate that concern.
I’m perfectly ok to play by the rules here and see how it goes.
But you have not addressed my main concern regarding the definition of words. Here’s a perfect example from your comment:
Hate speech in response to hate speech is perfectly acceptable - calling Nazis out is cool and correct.
I already see based on the comments here that anyone who votes for a Republican is going to being considered a Nazi and therefore used as justification for the rules to be applied unevenly against certain political affiliations.
Do you at least see and acknowledge my concern? Because this is going to turn into another dead and boring echochamber extremely quickly if these questions are not addressed head-on upfront.
I already see based on the comments here that anyone who votes for a Republican is going to being considered a Nazi[…]
other people have covered the rest here, so i’ll just point out that if you’re interested in soapboxing about “well-intentioned engagement from a diverse group of opinions”, you should probably take a second to consider why you’re seemingly unwilling to take such engagement from the other direction–or to even engage with why people might believe what you’re describing. i feel comfortable saying this because you were also unwilling to hear out the other side in a previous discussion on here, even when provided with evidence and points from multiple users that directly contradicted your assertions.
I’m in a forum where I am dominated by opposing viewpoints. To say that I’m unwilling to engage is laughable.
And the linked example is a back-and-forth with disagreement. Everything was completely civil. Are you saying that disagreeing with the established hivemind-narrative is “refusing to engage”? Disagreement and debate should be encouraged as long as it’s civil. I really don’t understand the point that you’re trying to make here. And I absolutely loathe the Reddit-like behavior of digging through someone’s post history with the ill-intent to smear them.
Ah so you’re just a left-wing partisan conspiracy theorist. … Or you’re a troll. Which is probably the case.
Which doesn’t really read as “completely civil”.
To say that I’m unwilling to engage is laughable.
The discussion that was linked quite literally shows your unwillingness to engage. I don’t get lying about something that everyone can check, I can only assume this is your genuine POV. That coupled with your comment earlier in this thread about how “here anyone who votes for a Republican is going to being considered a Nazi” gives the image of someone who does not actually care about “well-intentioned engagement from a diverse group of opinions”. It just reads as a persecution complex. You can’t even give well-intentioned engagement for your opinions!
digging through someone’s post history with the ill-intent to smear them.
It’s a conversation you had with that person like 3 days ago that helps highlight the bad faith engagement here. It’s not like they pulled out some unrelated tweet you made 8 years ago, lol.
They have defined the rules - multiple times and at length. If you’re dissatisfied with the lack of formal definition of ‘hate speech’ then that’s fine, but even vaguely defined rules are still defined rules.
I’m very glad to have you running a space like this. It is spectacular.
At the same time I can sympathize with what he said to a point. I don’t want to see hate speech just casually existing in public forums, but I also sometimes look at the spaces they use, out of a sort of morbid curiosity of what they are up to. It is often depressing and I consider it a bad habit, but knowledge is also power, and knowing what they are thinking can help a person avoid it.
With the nature of the fediverse and how accounts can be made on multiple instances no issue, I don’t think it is by any means your job to facilitate that sort of thing.
I like this post! I follow some people elsewhere who are mostly hyping up kbin because the main developer of Lemmy is a tankie and the main developer of kbin maybe isn’t - but it’s such a weird thing to apply a purity test to. Other comments mentioned it but Lemmy is FOSS, so even if you disagree with the political leanings of the developers, you are totally free to do what you want with it.
Barring the presence of any backdoors (which would likely/hopefully be caught because, again, FOSS) the main developers don’t have access to any instances created with the software. I don’t really understand the concern.
Now, if there’s a functional concern with the Lemmy platform and how it’s being developed, then yeah, that’s when a fork should be looked at. It shouldn’t be looked at by an individual community (with a lack of people who can help), but a more widespread effort. But forking because the “lead” developer doesn’t match your purity test? Nah.
I follow some people elsewhere who are mostly hyping up kbin because the main developer of Lemmy is a tankie and the main developer of kbin maybe isn’t - but it’s such a weird thing to apply a purity test to. Other comments mentioned it but Lemmy is FOSS
I never said it wasn’t, but I probably could have - my main point with mentioning that Lemmy is FOSS was that the developer’s politics doesn’t (necessarily) mean that the platform is bad.
Personally I have a very poor opinion of tankies, but that doesn’t really affect how I use Lemmy…unless all the good instances are taken over by them.
I find the obsession with effectively random people who don’t actually have that much influence over individual instance moderation a purity obsession.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !support@beehaw.org
Support and meta community for Beehaw. Ask your questions about the community, technical issues, and other such things here.
A brief FAQ for lurkers and new users can be found here.
This makes complete sense, I also think open source and federated platforms like this give users the most autonomy from the creators of the software when compared to other platforms. I do wish there was the ability to port users and communities across instances, though, kinda like you can do with mastodon. I understand that would be hard for the developers to create, but I think it would help with the creation of a truly free platform.
Furthermore, I think some of the concern around some primary instances is a little overblown, as most of the larger ones have their own policies against bigotry and fascism. However, I understand that the type moderation between instances differs, and that is the best part about federated services.
Is it possible to have a list of de-federated instances from Beehive? I think it may be good for transparency, even if I am pretty satisfied about how things are being done here!
Go to the bottom of the page, click on the Instances link and you’ll se 2 lists, all federated instances and all defederated instances.
Ah great! Thanks for pointing it out!
Any advice on how I can remove beehaw from my all feed in Jabora?
I find these types of environments produce echo chambers where suddenly I’m not even able to give my perspective on gender as a nonbinary person because it goes against some mainstream perspective.
I have other reasons, but yeah 😝 Fuck mods trying to control politics, I want free discussions, otherwise I’d just stay on Reddit lmao!
If anyone can give me instructions on how to remove beehaw that’d be greatly appreciated.
–edit–
Also if anyone can recommend any instances for open discussion!!
Regardless of the current situation, I think the option in general to “unsubscribe” from an entire instance could be useful. I know we can create our own instances and defederate, but not everyone has the skills, money, etc. to be able to do that.
We’re explicitly a safe space for minorities. I’m non-binary myself. But you don’t have to participate here if you don’t want to.
Same, I chose Beehaw in particular because of its stance on providing a bigotry free platform… that being said as a federated service you have many options for a “home instance” but if you still want to interact with a community on another instance you will still be subject to that communities and instances policies. As a lot of people like yourself have chosen Beehaw for its safe space nature, you may miss out on communities you would feel welcomed in if you were to completely swear off Beehaw, although you do have the freedom to choose that.
I am new to Lemmy and also to Beehaw. Does defederation mean that we can’t load comments/threads/communities from defederated servers via Beehaw (and vice versa for users of instances Beehaw has defederated from)?
If federation works the same on here as it does on Mastodon, then yes. When you defederate a server you can’t see their users, communities, posts, comments, etc and they can’t see yours 🙂
What are the implications for triangle constellations? Instances A, B and C.
A defederates B. Users from both A and B submit comments in a post in a community on C.
Do users from A and B get different views of the comment section on C? Or can they still meet and engage with each other on this neutral ground?
Thank you. :)
I just made a lemmy.world account after hearing about the mods on lemmy.ml, but when I posted a picture of winnie the pooh, the comment was deleted, and I was marked as a bot. And it sounds like beehaw’s not open for new registrations.
Oh well, guess I’ll be a tankie now. :/
What is going on with the mods on lemmy.ml? Tried a quick search but nothing came up.
Yeah. I tried to register at beehaw a couple of days ago… Without success:(
Join sopuli!
Can someone please link a list of offending material? Are both devs at fault or just one?
They, reportedly, run the lemmygrad instance
I’m fine with them being communists. I’m also fine with them not moderating things. I’m not fine with them actively denying genocides or denying repressive facts about historical or present socialist regimes.
https://lemmygrad.ml/post/668436 says they’re pro-Stalin, pro-North-Korea and pro-CCP, but dresses that up as just pro-Marxism.
Generally, it’s a good rule of thumb to see if people list things like worker ownership over the means of production and the abolition of the owning class, or a bunch of authoritarian regimes to judge if they’re keener on the communism or the authoritarianism.
How does one become pro North Korea etc? Lol. That’d take gymnast abilities I’m not quite capable of yet.
It’s honestly hard not to feel sorry about them after the Korean War. A lot of pro-NK sentiments are linked to anti-US and anticapitalist sentiments, seeing them as the desperate victim of invasion.
I’m not a fan of them, there is plenty they are doing wrong, but they’re also far from the comical villains they’re seen as by Western media. You know, “NK declare unicorns exist”, " everyone has to have Kim’s haircut " and also “you get executed for having his haircut”, “political rival executed by anti-aircraft gun” and then later photographed alive.
The answer is somewhere in the middle and in many ways a product of their absurd, tragic history.
That gives me a 404: deleted error
It’s still up for me, but I have to open it with a browser rather than Jerboa. I’ll see if I can figure out posting screenshots from this app.
Is that poster one of the devs?
Very sus that they’d support those regimes, not all MLs do.
No. That’s the admin of Lemmygrad. They are not a dev, or staff of lemmy.ml
The question for me is actually is it ethical to contribute to his repo.
I think my idea is maybe the contributors are seperate from the code. A fork happens when code is rejected because a maintainer does something unpopular. Wait for that to happen. FOSS has a history of dealing with uncomfortable maintainers, like Linus.
Hopefully not repeating things others have said…
This is what I have failed to understand about people seemingly worried about this instance wanting to be a safe space. If they do not like it, they can just jump to another instance.
“Safe space” also doesn’t have to mean milquetoast or self-censoring. I’m new to this particular community, but I expect there are all manner of topics that any of us could discuss passionately without being jerks. Reading the description of the founding ethos of this community suggested only that I make a commitment to being decent and that I respect the dignity and celebrate the validity of others who aren’t like me. I don’t see anything in there about restricting vigorous discussions about tax policy or guns or whatever the day’s hot topic is as long as you’re decent about it and start from the assumption that people can disagree in good faith.
I respect your philosophy and believe you should do what is best for yourself and the community. Also want to point out that by forking, you might be closing the door to allies and those who fall through the cracks due to the registration system.
For example, I initially tried to make beehaw.org my home base, but maybe I didn’t include enough info in my registration statement, because I’m still not approved. This was what I wrote:
“I’m signing up for Beehaw because Reddit is essentially killing the 3rd-party app I use to browse reddit (Reddit is Fun) and I refuse to use their mediocre official app. I want to join this community because it seems diverse and polite, and if Reddit is preventing me from using their site the way I’ve been doing for the last 9-ish years then I’d rather go elsewhere. As to what I can contribute, hopefully add to the conversations here and be a part of this growing community. The wonderful thing about Reddit is that for the past 9 years I’ve been a user, there was always someone who could answer my questions on virtually any topic, and sometimes the roles are flipped and I’d be lucky enough to be able to provide answers to a random stranger instead. I’ve shared mods I made for games on the site and participated in gaming and political discussions, but otherwise mostly spent my time scrolling through the news and enjoyed reading discussions on various topics. I’m sure you guys have received an influx of Reddit refugees recently, and like them I hope to make Beehaw my new home.”
Like I said, maybe not enough info, but I believe my politics and philosophy jives with the Beehaw community. Now, getting rejected (or put in limbo) is not a big deal because I can still participate freely from lemmy.world, and most of my subscriptions are to Beehaw instances (news, politics, gaming) so in all honesty it doesn’t make a big difference. But the point is that if Beehaw was forked, then someone like me would be cut off from this community. As a minority myself and someone who considers themself an ally, I want to reiterate that you should do what you believe is best for the community and yourself. I just wanted to give my own (biased) opinion on the matter.
in all probability it just got lost in our sea of applications (our backlog is 4.5k)–we know for a fact we’ve left a bunch of very good people on read because of the limitations of what we’re working with and you’re probably one of them
I do not think a fork of Lemmy would necessarily break AP federation with your instance. Heck, we even have Mastodon and Friendica accounts post and reply here. Eventually smartphone apps like Jerboa would stop working if the codebase would deviate too much, though (unless app devs start supporting both Lemmy and the fork).
Regarding your application, I am reading a lot of stuff about Reddit (and you on Reddit) in your post and maybe that was not the kind of answer the team behind Beehaw was looking for. No offense intended, BTW.
I would love to have this as a generalized text to be shared between instances. I’d use the general mood of this post as basis for the rules for all my instances. Maybe on GitHub, which then can be edited through pull requests and discussed.
I originally joined Beehaw, but decided to run my own instance because why not. I still prefer subscribing the communities in Beehaw just due to this way of thinking. I hope the moderation works for you and doesn’t get too bad.
You’re welcome to take my text and use it as a starting point for self-organizing around governance to fit your needs.
I am curious of this. Just trying to get some perspective. You say some political “parties” facilitate hate speech. I guess I am curious how tight that belt squeezes.
For context, I am pretty far to the left politically. Farther left than any of the parties in the US. But some would associate the entire Republican party to facilitated hate speech. While a large bunch, if not most of loud ones on the internet do right now, a lot of them that I know personally, hate Trump and agree with most liberal social issues but are just against tax dollars being used for certain things. “Fiscally conservative” as they say. Conversations are fine with these people, we just don’t agree.
You are allowed to do whatever you want on your server and I can understand not wanting to pay to host something that disagrees with your values and beliefs. I am just trying to understand how this goes. If someone was having a peaceful discussion about a political non hateful subject without any hate in it, would they be removed purely because they revealed they are a Republican?
I understand the possibility of that hypothetical scenario gets lower every day unfortunately, especially on the internet.
I’ve explicitly stated that we are focused on the hate speech and only the hate speech. I don’t care what political affiliation you have. I only care if you’re spreading hate speech.
“Unfortunately some political groups build themselves around and choose to elevate or tolerate hate speech. These are the only political groups that we are incompatible with.”
I guess this is where it got muddy for me. Thank you for the response.
removed by mod
A few years ago it turned out a very promising python documentation library was using another library for a core aspect of the docstring comment parsing subsystem. I don’t remember the names of either of these two, but as it turns out, the person who wrote the docstring comment parsing subsystem was someone who liked using the Nazi-Facing-Swastika as his repeating background image on his site and as textual glyphs to denote things like list items. He claimed it was everyone being too stupid to know he was using it in an eastern context, but he had an email like firstname_lastname88@gmail or whatever.
The point I made then is that even if FirstName LastName was running into a culture-shock situation, and even if they just happened to like the number 88 - or maybe they were born in 88 - there was simply no way I wanted to tie myself or my employer to that person. Nobody is going to extend any grace.
I guess I don’t even think that is necessarily a bad thing. Why should people stanning genocidal authoritarian regimes be extended grace? Is it only okay if they can give us something, like a nazi scientist building space rockets? Is it simply because they gave you something you can’t get anywhere else without paying more than you’d want to? I actually don’t have an answer for this. I felt fine telling PossibleNazi88
No, and AccidentallyLinkedCompositionalLibraryAuthorSorry, I'll pass, and in large part that is because Sphinx does exist and I can use it, even if I’d prefer not to. But what if this library were the only one? Would I just hold my nose and use it anyway?Same with Lemmy - can I get it in a different package? A similar fediverse community package, without the gross genocide cooties all over it? This is a practical question; maybe this is reason enough to want to host a kbin instance over lemmy, eventually.
But philosophically: What if the next fediverse community package is from a Patriotic American, who has no problem with all the first peoples genocides and chattel slavery history because they believe in America so much that it’s an intrinsic part of their identity?
It sucks because I want to make everything better, and I believe that to be true of Beehaw administration for sure as well, but navigating this shit is hard and even if you’re principled you’re probably only principled insofar as you’re aware.
Conversely, doing the thing you know to be wrong just because the alternative is hard and maybe impossible isn’t good either. But maybe you can use the genocide-fan’s product to do more good than harm? But now you’re back to nazi scientists making moon rockets, and nobody is happy.
I guess I’m just rambling while I admire the problem.
Something else to throw in to the mix: a lot of similar questions have likely been faced by developers to the FOSS community: “What if my library is used in abhorrent ways?” “Should I restrict usage of my software to ensure it’s used in morally good ways?” etc.
In my experience, not too many people seem to take issue with FOSS in these ways–any usage of the software is entirely put on the person using it, and the FOSS developer is not held accountable for it. If we apply the same logic here, I would posit that the usage of FOSS developed by a morally questionable developer should have a similar dissociation applied.
I’ll also challenge your analogy of nazi scientists. Hiring someone who has committed humanitarian atrocities is quite different from using FOSS produced by morally questionable developers. In the latter case, this person is not receiving any significant benefit (one could argue publicity, but the value of that seems debatable and minimal compared to a salary). A closer analogy would be something like: is it morally acceptable to make use of the code that those nazi scientists produced for an authoritarian regime? Still a complicated question, but more related to the issue at hand, I think.
I don’t really get why the authors ideals and beliefs matter. For for-profit stuff, it does matter because I don’t want to be supporting someone with that lifestyle or someone who actively wants me dead.
But for the open source stuff, he’s not making any money off of me. And it’s pretty safe since other people are vetting the code and they’ll complain if something malicious is happening. In other words, since I am not contributing to the developer, his ideals don’t really matter to me
The authors ideals and beliefs are relevant, because those guided their decision to make a Free and Open Source, federated alternative to reddit, and avoid capitalist modes of funding (like integrating ads or other exploitative methods). That’s why this existed long before reddit was extorting through their API.
I definitely agree and feel with the arguments you have here. It’s a challenging issue to resolve. On one hand there’s the practical Rock of “transitioning to another asset and engaging in the practical burden that shifting gears brings,” and in this circumstance, that would come with the extra caveat of trying to commit to that transition during a busy period as is. On the other hand is the moral Hard Place of “you’re working with an asset actively developed by someone or something with known issues—are you willing to accept, and to some degree associate, with that?” I don’t feel like there’s a clear-cut path that’s both morally bright and practically realistic, and it’s not the kind of thing that makes me dance with joy.
If nothing else, it’s good to respect that we have a dilemma in our hands. Whichever way the community decides to collectively stand, both in the short and long term, I’m happy that we’re having this conversation at all. I think it’s important to acknowledge what we have and have a meaningful discussion around it. Putting our heads in the sand and pretending it’s a non-issue at best delays the issue and allows it to fester.
—
That’s a great point I almost forgot to highlight. Even if I think I got my things sorted in such a way that I think my hands are clean in something, I typically end up finding out of nowhere that something down the line has some issues behind it that I need to resolve somehow. It’s a process that doesn’t seem to end, and it can feel exhausting sometimes.
You’ve captured my own confusing and conflicting thoughts as well.
I have so far loved my experience here (just been a few days) beehaw is exactly what is what to see in an online community
But despite the federated nature of lemmy the code ultimately is (so I’m learning in this thread!) currently in the hands of people who are the opposite of beehaw. That’s a difficult pill to swallow.
If there were ever a row between the devs of Lemmy and Beehaw, could they retaliate against us in some manner using the code?
I’m struggling to think of an example of this, but maybe something like forcing a “captcha” before every comment submission that requires you to type in something like “Long Lives Chairman Mao” or something like that. It is clearly antithetical to what Beehaw ascribes, but would be ultimately powerless to stop.
Excellent response. I joined Beehaw because I liked Beehaw’s rules and philosophy. Kinda reminds me of Mozilla’s in beta Mastodon instance. Beehaw as an entity is completely separate from its technological roots and this post eloquently shows that.
I hope this eases any political harassment along those lines.
I don’t pretend to change anything of how this place works, specially considering it’s federated and, as you say, presumably different spaces can be forked and “set up their own rules”.
I remain, however quite keen to see if the “no hate speech” is a consistent thing or simply a “hate is ok against the right targets” and “being on the other side of X issue is hate speech” (e.g.: any controversial topic such as being against a particular war, being in favor of/against political party X, expressing views opposed to government policies, not sharing a specific view by the demographic majority of the site (Usually US/UK/AUS)).
Ideally, I can set up something where I can get exposure to many views and go here and there without having to feel I’m in X circlejerk and the narrative is packet Y, that comes with all these predetermined views in this overton window.
In a way, the more I have access to, the better. Because I can move from side to side learning about the others. Obviously, this view is not shared by many and thet would gladly censor 75% of the space to preserve the right way, claiming it’s “moderation”. I don’t disagree on moderation but I think that we’re too interfered at this point that we don’t even see how little room we have for discussion (which then creates very narrow discussions in different niches).
In any case, sorry for the stream of consciousness. Excited to see how all this works and hopefully I’m able to participate and gain insights from a wide array of perspectives in a wide descentralized network.
As is stated elsewhere, we are explicitly intolerant of the intolerant. Hate speech in response to hate speech is perfectly acceptable - calling Nazis out is cool and correct.
Yeah. Don’t want you to feel the need to justify yourself. I appreciate the efforts regardless of whether we end up agreeing on moderation policies (and I think not agreeing on everything and coexisting is awesome). Was just adding my 2 cents, which I feel will be different from many.
I obviously have my concerns on the “call out a nazi” because holding the wrong ™ opinion will get you called a nazi but that’s just par for the course. I don’t particularly need a safe space and it would be bad (imho) if ALL spaces were so but, again, presumably the ability of a descentralized network is that, that everyone will always be able to launch their instance with their rules to mitigate that concern.
I’m perfectly ok to play by the rules here and see how it goes.
Absolutely love this philosophy! Keep up the fantastic work.
But you have not addressed my main concern regarding the definition of words. Here’s a perfect example from your comment:
I already see based on the comments here that anyone who votes for a Republican is going to being considered a Nazi and therefore used as justification for the rules to be applied unevenly against certain political affiliations.
Do you at least see and acknowledge my concern? Because this is going to turn into another dead and boring echochamber extremely quickly if these questions are not addressed head-on upfront.
other people have covered the rest here, so i’ll just point out that if you’re interested in soapboxing about “well-intentioned engagement from a diverse group of opinions”, you should probably take a second to consider why you’re seemingly unwilling to take such engagement from the other direction–or to even engage with why people might believe what you’re describing. i feel comfortable saying this because you were also unwilling to hear out the other side in a previous discussion on here, even when provided with evidence and points from multiple users that directly contradicted your assertions.
I’m in a forum where I am dominated by opposing viewpoints. To say that I’m unwilling to engage is laughable.
And the linked example is a back-and-forth with disagreement. Everything was completely civil. Are you saying that disagreeing with the established hivemind-narrative is “refusing to engage”? Disagreement and debate should be encouraged as long as it’s civil. I really don’t understand the point that you’re trying to make here. And I absolutely loathe the Reddit-like behavior of digging through someone’s post history with the ill-intent to smear them.
Later in that thread you say
Which doesn’t really read as “completely civil”.
The discussion that was linked quite literally shows your unwillingness to engage. I don’t get lying about something that everyone can check, I can only assume this is your genuine POV. That coupled with your comment earlier in this thread about how “here anyone who votes for a Republican is going to being considered a Nazi” gives the image of someone who does not actually care about “well-intentioned engagement from a diverse group of opinions”. It just reads as a persecution complex. You can’t even give well-intentioned engagement for your opinions!
It’s a conversation you had with that person like 3 days ago that helps highlight the bad faith engagement here. It’s not like they pulled out some unrelated tweet you made 8 years ago, lol.
He spit out a conspiracy theory and I called him out on it. Jesus Christ.
Nazism is not Republican
You haven’t defined the rules until you define ‘hate speech’ which is a core part of the so-called rules.
This concern is explicitly addressed in the links I have provided you.
They have defined the rules - multiple times and at length. If you’re dissatisfied with the lack of formal definition of ‘hate speech’ then that’s fine, but even vaguely defined rules are still defined rules.
I’m very glad to have you running a space like this. It is spectacular.
At the same time I can sympathize with what he said to a point. I don’t want to see hate speech just casually existing in public forums, but I also sometimes look at the spaces they use, out of a sort of morbid curiosity of what they are up to. It is often depressing and I consider it a bad habit, but knowledge is also power, and knowing what they are thinking can help a person avoid it.
With the nature of the fediverse and how accounts can be made on multiple instances no issue, I don’t think it is by any means your job to facilitate that sort of thing.
I like this post! I follow some people elsewhere who are mostly hyping up kbin because the main developer of Lemmy is a tankie and the main developer of kbin maybe isn’t - but it’s such a weird thing to apply a purity test to. Other comments mentioned it but Lemmy is FOSS, so even if you disagree with the political leanings of the developers, you are totally free to do what you want with it. Barring the presence of any backdoors (which would likely/hopefully be caught because, again, FOSS) the main developers don’t have access to any instances created with the software. I don’t really understand the concern.
Now, if there’s a functional concern with the Lemmy platform and how it’s being developed, then yeah, that’s when a fork should be looked at. It shouldn’t be looked at by an individual community (with a lack of people who can help), but a more widespread effort. But forking because the “lead” developer doesn’t match your purity test? Nah.
Actually Kbin is FLOSS too: https://github.com/ernestwisniewski/kbin
I never said it wasn’t, but I probably could have - my main point with mentioning that Lemmy is FOSS was that the developer’s politics doesn’t (necessarily) mean that the platform is bad.
I didn’t even know what a tankie was before today.
Personally I have a very poor opinion of tankies, but that doesn’t really affect how I use Lemmy…unless all the good instances are taken over by them. I find the obsession with effectively random people who don’t actually have that much influence over individual instance moderation a purity obsession.