@dessalines@lemmy.ml@davel@lemmy.ml I am curious as to your thoughts on this. It is very annoying for myself and others to write out effort posts refuting shit these liberals spew on our platforms only to find out none of them will ever see it. Meanwhile we have to be subject to their garbage posts and takes with no recourse. This is fundamentally detrimental to the fediverse as a whole.
There’s nothing we can do about server-to-server blocking, but I think over the long term, people will join servers that do less instance blocking, so that they can personally be in control of what they see.
And of course everyone not on restricted servers will still see your replies / takedowns, so it really only harms them. In a big way, responses are just as important to onlookers, than the one you’re responding to.
Oh yeah for sure I was just curious as to your thoughts on people taking this project and building in their own ideologically motivated blocking. I know that there is nothing to be done about it as its all open source I just find it scummy that they do this in the first place. I get not wanting to federate with specific instances but the way this works is to just automatically make it one way only unless the person using their fork manually changes it.
I don’t want to force them to see our posts or comments or anything idgaf about that I just don’t want to have to guess which people I can see on my end can actually see my replies to them ya know?
unless the person using their fork manually changes it.
Updating the defederation blocklist is done via the admin UI. A fork implies having to recreate the source code and modify it. This is different.
Recent comment from another admin
This is exactly how it works. I started a PieFed instance and made the decision (during setup) to trim the defederation list down to none. Users can block on the account level.
I’d argue it’s more of an issue for them, since they do not get to counter-argument :P
Your reply refuting their argument can be read by everyone that is in an open platform, while their messages only go unchallenged on their own echo chamber anyway.
To me, it would be worse if it was the other way around: them spewing shit and me not even realizing and being unable to respond.
The invalid reasoning a person might have for an argument does not necessarily invalidate the argument (if you can reach the same argument from multiple reasonings), it only discredits their ability to form arguments with a valid basis.
So a long conversation can lead to the person losing credibility, but a strong rebuttal focused on the initial argument, to me, is more important if what we want is to refute the argument.
Both have their place, but usually arguments start from low-effort jabs that then turn into serious refutations from others. Fundamentally, though, is the response, giving the original jab-maker a chance to give an actual argument, upon which it can fall apart and prove the original argument better, or can refute the argument and justify the jab.
@dessalines@lemmy.ml @davel@lemmy.ml I am curious as to your thoughts on this. It is very annoying for myself and others to write out effort posts refuting shit these liberals spew on our platforms only to find out none of them will ever see it. Meanwhile we have to be subject to their garbage posts and takes with no recourse. This is fundamentally detrimental to the fediverse as a whole.
There’s nothing we can do about server-to-server blocking, but I think over the long term, people will join servers that do less instance blocking, so that they can personally be in control of what they see.
And of course everyone not on restricted servers will still see your replies / takedowns, so it really only harms them. In a big way, responses are just as important to onlookers, than the one you’re responding to.
Oh yeah for sure I was just curious as to your thoughts on people taking this project and building in their own ideologically motivated blocking. I know that there is nothing to be done about it as its all open source I just find it scummy that they do this in the first place. I get not wanting to federate with specific instances but the way this works is to just automatically make it one way only unless the person using their fork manually changes it.
I don’t want to force them to see our posts or comments or anything idgaf about that I just don’t want to have to guess which people I can see on my end can actually see my replies to them ya know?
Updating the defederation blocklist is done via the admin UI. A fork implies having to recreate the source code and modify it. This is different.
Recent comment from another admin
https://wetshav.ing/comment/92409
Whatever, point still stands it’s shady AF and you are obsessed with defending it and I really don’t give a shit how you spin it.
I’d argue it’s more of an issue for them, since they do not get to counter-argument :P
Your reply refuting their argument can be read by everyone that is in an open platform, while their messages only go unchallenged on their own echo chamber anyway.
To me, it would be worse if it was the other way around: them spewing shit and me not even realizing and being unable to respond.
Funny side note: hexbear blocked one of my diet communities at the instance level, so the echo chamber goes both ways.
In my experience, fallacious arguments spill and unravel over several comments, rarely up front, so it’s not a great thing.
It depends.
The invalid reasoning a person might have for an argument does not necessarily invalidate the argument (if you can reach the same argument from multiple reasonings), it only discredits their ability to form arguments with a valid basis.
So a long conversation can lead to the person losing credibility, but a strong rebuttal focused on the initial argument, to me, is more important if what we want is to refute the argument.
Both have their place, but usually arguments start from low-effort jabs that then turn into serious refutations from others. Fundamentally, though, is the response, giving the original jab-maker a chance to give an actual argument, upon which it can fall apart and prove the original argument better, or can refute the argument and justify the jab.