Oh, I understand the tactics being used. I was implying that person c was obviously stalking person a and pounced the moment they did something less than perfect.
My guess is there isn’t anything of substance, so person c’s sensitivity got amplified with time and obsessing over whatever is going on, leading them to overreact. But, not c has to double down if they want any chance of being taken seriously if a significant cause to defederate occurs.
I got around 5 links deep for each of the links in the admin’s post, and fuck if I know. There was an argumentative user, but they were articulate and thoughtful. Not dropping slurs or wasting space nonsense, but still bordering on “edgy”. The person pushing the defederation appeared to be bullying them and on a power trip.
It was embarrassing. That’s all I took away. (My opinion can change if someone digs through the shitpiles of nothingness to pull up some actual naughty posts, but that’s not going to be me.)
I almost thought I had written your comment and completely forgot about it. No, I just almost made the exact comment and want that hour of my life back.
If there was some over the top racist rant, I sure didn’t see it. And the admin pushing for the defederation sounds so bizarre. Bizarre is the best word I could come up with because “petty” makes me think it was like high school politics. This is closer to a grade school sandbox argument.
The worst I saw was “defedfags” and it was used in a way that was meant to highlight how they never said anything offensive. Like saying, “If you thought what I said before was offensive, let’s see how you respond to something intended to be negative.”
The crazy thing is that the decision is being made because the admin just liked a post. It’s not even because of the post content - which has nothing controversial and appeared maybe 8 times in my Lemmy/kbin feed yesterday.
Editing to add that this is the article: https://kbin.social/search?q=wakeup+call
I don’t WANT to agree, but I kinda do.
We’re here because Reddit was shit on top shit, led by gaping anus. We all accept that Meta is the same.
We didn’t want Reddit profiting from our work. Meta will do the same, only more competently.
Defederation is useless at scale They can continually spin up new instances that act as spies and bridges to Meta’s area.
Once enough Meta bridge nodes are woven into the Fedi, they’ll be masked by a backchannel to mask the exchange/activity.
Someone plz tell me I’m wrong, but this is how I think things work in the background…
Probably easy to combat when it’s one instance here and there. If it’s constant and automated, federating would have to be paused until the spies are weeded out and there’s a better detection strategy. If they get a big enough network going, they could all dip out at once, change identity, and refederate back in as the Fedi network flips out because of all the sync mismatches. Just more new nodes joining in. They have the source code, so they can act differently from other instances as long as it doesn’t cause problems.
Is this a realistic scenario or am I way off base? I feel like it has to be one of the two.
Replied to above.
My point is that this argument makes as much sense as what I wrote, so it’s encouraging the you think it’s ridiculous.
“Versus” is a valueless delineation separating two subjects. There are two groups: The people of the Fediverse and the people not in the Fediverse. Neither one is good or bad, and in fact, many are a part of BOTH. That self awareness cancels any perceived negativity. We’re all probably some level of “normie,” and I’ve never heard someone use that word without immediate laughter by all parties. Sure, maybe in the early 00s by grade school punks, but I don’t think anyone does or should care.
The point you’re actually making, without articulating it well, is the lack of terminology for federated groups. No one wants to say, “I’m a member of a select federated Lemmy and Kbin instances within the larger Fediverse.” You want an affirmative set of terms, so that delineation can be made; you want to say, “The X have this, and the not(X) have that.” From there you can get to value judgements, based on the expression of X, and I’ll recognize your concerns. The ridiculousness of those terms not existing makes it VERY hard to claim intentional negativity/harm because it simultaneously draws attention that group X in this case doesn’t have their shit together enough to come up with a nickname or shorthand.
“You’re better than us? What are you?”
“Well, you see, I’m a part of a federated network of…”
(Looks up - everyone left)
So, until someone comes up with some non-super-cringe terms for this wonderful mess, the discussion is a waste of everyone’s time. And until then, I suggest taking it on a case by case basis. If someone is offended, tell them that’s not intended because we don’t have OUR shit together, ask them what they prefer, and use that term around them.
I 100% agree that word is cringe and I’m totally into the fediverse for the long haul, but we have to address the pachyderm in the room: The word “Fediverse” is just as cringe.
I, … I’m sorry. I can read it in a document, but the second a human being types it, I can’t take it seriously. I don’t care if folks want to shorten it to something like the FI (Federated Instances). Yes, there are other uses of the word “federate”, but it immediately sounds like a federal intraweb domain or a group of Star Trek policy makers.
“Fediverse” is “netizen 2.0.”
“Fediverse” is “cruising on the information superhighway Pro.”
Please tell me I’m not alone in thinking this.
No no no, it’s stereotyping and prejudice when OTHER people do it to US. WE should tell THEM that THEY are US, and by saying this to OURSELVES we have said it to THEM, so that WE know that THEY know, but now THEY are a THEM again.
YOU don’t get it. WE get it. YOU should all be like US where there is no YOU and US, there is only the WE that is YOU and US, but thereis no YOU and US, there is only the WE that is YOU and US, but thereis no YOU and US, there is only the WE that is YOU and US, but thereis no YOU and US, there is only the WE that is YOU and US.
Simple. See? You don’t? But, YOU must because there is no…
So you’re saying there are people who DO use “normies” and people that DON’T use “normies”. These are not two groups of people. Shit, I just joined this thread, so that makes ME one of YOU, and there’s OTHERS that aren’t here. Are WE the elitists? Or are THEY the “normies”? YOU said there’s no there’s no US or THEM, so EVERYONE is talking in this thread. ANYONE not in this thread must not exist because I know I exist, so YOU thread posters must exist, but wait, that makes ME an US and YOU a THEM.
(I’m not trying to be snarky, but this argument is exactly as nonsensical.)
Generally, if someone’s being a total asshole so severely that they have to be yeeted with several thousand other unaware bystanders, I expect to see a bunch of examples within the first… 2, maybe 3, links.
If someone can point me to a concise list of examples (actual data), I find it more disturbing that an admin on another server can yeet my account because they make noise on a discord server.I mean, yes, federating is a feature, but why even offer the ability to enroll users? Maybe for a group of friends, or something, but just rando users is nothing but a liability to everyone involved.