This is more of a question for the admins, but this can certainly be a more open discussion.
Per this thread, beehaw defederated from lemmy.world and sh.itjust.works two months ago, around the time that the reddit exodus was happening. Lemmy was blowing up, those instances had an open sign-up policy, and this meant that admins of other instances (like Beehaw) that wanted to heavily moderate their communities became quickly overwhelmed with the number of users from these two instances. Beehaw defederated to make the workload more realistic.
Two months on, I’m wondering if this defederation is still necessary. It seems to me that Lemmy overall has slowed down a lot, and maybe the flow of users from these outside servers would not be as overwhelming as it was before? I respect the decision of the admins one way or the other - I know that the lack of moderation tools was another factor in this decision. I’m just curious if this is something that has been considered recently?
I genuinely recommend against re-federation for Beehaw.
My unique take and experience from lemmy.one is simply the number of users who simply seek to stir the pot.
My blocklist is full of people from lemm.ee and sh.itjust.works and lemmy.world as well as lemmy.ca . When I compare the number of blocks to the number I’ve blocked from beehaw or even my own instance; a paltry one or two; I’m only ever seeing trolls or idealogues coming from those instances to argue with my posts no matter how well reasoned they may be. For context; if I tell someone they are absolutely wrong and they persist; they automatically meet my block list. I won’t suffer people who aren’t going to discuss things civilly or rationally.
Blocking someone because they don’t agree with you telling them they are “absolutely wrong” isn’t civil or rational discourse. Unless you meant something different?
Telling someone that they are “Absolutely wrong” is within my right and is also a very polite way to indicate to someone to shut up and listen without saying it; and that attempting to talk with me further on the topic will not be civil or fruitful.
Blocking people who persist is a simple mechanism to weed out anyone who refuse to listen to logic or feelings on a matter when they don’t align with their own.
Would you rather I be blunt and simply tell idiots to “Shut the fuck up”? Because that’s definitely not civility. Don’t try to argue semantics here; it’s ugly and unnecessary.
Absolutely within your rights, depending on the instance you are on and if the rules are enforced i suppose. Same as anything anybody else says. One of the main draws of the fediverse, no ?
I doubt “Absolutely wrong” would be read as “shut up and listen” in most contexts but i could be in the minority here.
Agreed , i do it too, frequently.
i don’t have an opinion on how blunt you should be with people, your call.
Arguing semantics is ugly when done in bad faith ,but i’m not trolling or baiting you , i just happen to think word choice is important in some situations. (for a given value of important, i mean it’s not life or death here or anything)
In this case i (personally) read it as “I block people who don’t agree with my very well reasoned opinion, even after i graciously explained it to them, they just won’t listen to me and keep replying”.
and most of that comes from the use of the term “Absolutely wrong” which is an absolute, by definition and leaves no room for other opinions or options.
As you said, you can use whatever words you like, at least one person thinks your use of absolutes in statements detracts from your otherwise cogent arguments, do with that what you will.