I know this post will probably be downvoted to hell, give me much problems and probably will make my account being banned but you have to know that i take no side writing this.

So i wanted to take a look at lemmygrad.ml to see if it was as it’s reputation is(im not the kind of person to follow the herd without thinking by myself) and apparently lemmygrad never defederated with any instances without consulting it’s members(which lemmy.world and others instances did).

So i was thinking, isn’t censoring content without asking your community a totalitarian thing like north korea or any so-called totalitarian country could have done ?

I know i may be incorrect but i accept any kind of criticism against this post if it’s constructive, “shut up hidden tankie” or any kind of free insult isn’t a valid arguments, if you really defend democracy as i do im sure you can debate while being civilized.

  • jmcs@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    31
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    5 months ago

    Are you really comparing the use of freedom of association with state censorship backed by literal violence?

    • Titou@sh.itjust.worksOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      5 months ago

      How is defederating an instance without asking your community first a democratic action ? they also did the same with piracy communities and everybody claimed that “they didn’t asked us first”.

      • u/lukmly013 💾 (lemmy.sdf.org)@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        5 months ago

        Also something to consider is that each federated instance keeps their copy of that content. If the content is some hateful propaganda, those instances may also be held legally responsible for that. Same with piracy communities.

      • Monkey With A Shell@lemmy.socdojo.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        Fedi platforms have a key distinction putting them separate from most other online platforms in that you can literally create your own and have all the rights of a platform admin today, and have access to the very same content as you would having an account on another’s node. In that regard there’s much less room to complain about unilateral actions by the instance owner than there would be for other systems. As the size of an instance grows you run a greater risk any time you take such an action, but so long as it’s consistent with past behavior it shouldn’t be a major problem. Large instances like .world have made some cuts that ruffled a few feathers and then backed them off if people objected, but sometimes direct democracy isn’t particularly viable in what might be a time sensitive situation.

        • LarkinDePark@lemmygrad.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          It’s about people making decisions unilaterally, changing something that they don’t care the users nah like it dislike. Saying, well you can do it too, isn’t a serious response. Not everyone has the resources or the time to run instances.

          • Monkey With A Shell@lemmy.socdojo.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            5 months ago

            Then if running a docker container isn’t an option search through the multitudes of alternate instances and select one that agrees with your moderation policy. I’m sure there are plenty of ‘freeze-peach’ instances out there, for a while at least the infamous GAB was a part of the fedi, though I think they got pretty universally banished right off the bat.