I am too tired right now to figure out why this isn't 9 hours+lunch.
I feel like this is a setup for a joke somehow.
Here's one attempt: "am or pm?", answer: "yes!..."
What if the USA decides to side with Russia against Germany?
That's... a lot of hours?
More like he DGAF.:-P
This works for every nation I can think of... that would offer this product on their shelves.
Let us know your progress, m'kay? :-P (inquiring tastebugs demand to know! and no I've decided not to change that spelling!)
You have added to this discussion imho:-).
You are correct I think that the true ideal would be to not prevent people who want access to those communities from being able to do so, i.e. the opt-in nature should not be blocked, nor should people (especially new users) be forced into being presented that content devoid of context as if it were fully normalized as nearly all other communities on Lemmy are, i.e. it should not be opt-out, with that process gated by some technical procedure.
Ideally a third option would be available... however Lemmy has offered none, only an instance block procedure that to me seems horribly misnamed, as it functions really only as a community mute, but the users from the "blocked" instance can still troll you, outside of those communities.
It is a difficult problem to be sure, and one that each instance must struggle with as best it can - e.g. I agree that lemm.ee should not defederate from it, as that would go against their stated mission, although by the same token I think that Discuss.Online should defederate from especially hexbear to better match our own mission statement.
Exactly! Whenever I bring up an issue involving downvoting (by used of hexbear, or perhaps lemmy.ml) people usually ask why don't I just move to an instance where downvotes are disabled? The answer is always that I WANT feedback, if delivered genuinely and authentically, by people whose opinions matter i.e. ones who don't preemptively start by lying to themselves routinely, before they then tell their alternative facts to others. In this manner I literally am aided into becoming a better person, as I used to be wrong and then afterwards am (hopefully gently) guided into being correct.
So then to be "corrected" by those for whom no means yes, does me no good. Instead, it encourages me to just stop offering content, knowing what feedback will occur when I do. Toxicity kills discussions, and if our entire purpose here is to facilitate discussions, then by allowing toxicity we have failed (though there are "details" here that matter ofc, like whose responsibility it is to moderate content on what instance - usually it is the admins, except what happens then when that practice breaks down and the admins themselves join in? at that point defederation is all that remains open to us, bc we have no capacity let alone capability to moderate not only content on our own instance but also another one too, especially one like that that self-admittedly thrives on conflict).
Quality over quantity you might say. Except that's not true bc when toxicity abounds, it not only lowers quality, but quantity as well. This is ironically even true on Hexbear itself, as they have managed to run off even some of their own devs (https://hexbear.net/post/1712067/4540345) - and if allowed to spread further, will run off many other users too.
Did SJW recently defederate from HB?
It looks like it. Interesting discussion here: https://sh.itjust.works/post/27494947
Weird that they defeded with Beehaw, though.
They did not actually - it was the other way around: https://beehaw.org/post/567170
Yeah those communities would work great if marked as "local-only". I thought the admins there even said somewhere that they wanted to explore doing that. However, "local-only" communities have been possible for quite awhile now - next week it will have been fully half a year - and seeing as how hexbear is not willing to make that switch... it comes down to other instances making that trolly-problem decision to either allow all of their content, vs. none of it by defederation.
I also saw some instances (such as StarTrek.Website) attempt to try out intermediate experimental solutions on their own (blocking solely those 2 communities while allowing all others from the instance to be federated), only to have them be terribly confusing to users and later abandon them and just defederate with them entirely.
I think it boils down to: when people engage in good faith, a solution can be found, but when e.g. even instance admins will lie boldly to the face of other instance admins, what possible agreement could be reached that would satisfy anybody?
Preemptively I will say that it sucks that people will get caught up in all of this who even on that instance avoid those troublesome communities. On the other hand, good fences make good neighbors, and if you feel bad for them you can create an account and go talk with them - an "opt-in" procedure like that is fantastic, maximizing the freedom of choices for both you and the other party involved.
The problem comes when features are made to be "opt-out", and moreover, buried beneath several layers of complexity to accomplish a block (assuming that's even possible - right now on Lemmy it's really not, as even after blocking an instance, its users can still troll you, replying to you and generating notifications, plus vote on and thereby influence the visibility of your content). Exactly like how Windows is enshittifying itself, making procedures be "opt-out" like that tends to drive people away - even if good users get caught up in the ongoing struggles. In fact it's rather like taking hostages - "you don't dare defederate from us or all of these innocents will get hurt!" - and yet giving in to the absolute worst behaviors simply offers tacit approval of them, and allows them to spread still further.
And to be clear, yes I am absolutely talking about making the Fediverse more welcoming to mainstream normies - which is not merely leftits who aren't leftist hard enough, but even centrists, and possibly even some less-vitriolic-and-well-behaving (if any such exist) conservatives. If we want to grow the Fediverse, to where it will be welcoming to ALL, then we need to make sure that ALL feel welcome - at least, those willing to behave and play by the set of mutualy-agreed-upon rules. Though for those unwilling to abide by agreed-upon principles, their political stance does not matter to me in the slightest, as even the very people claiming to espouse them won't hold firm to them anyway.