This is the inevitable result of the decision to fund the internet at large via ads. And there would be (has been) tremendous friction from users when it comes to switching from ad-based to subscription, so we might just be stuck with it.
Analogies are generally terrible at convincing people, and even more so when it's about legal situations.
The process would be that they get sent some notice that something they're hosting violates copyright law, and that it needs to be taken down or a lawsuit will happen. Unless they ignore it, and they should definitely not do that, then nothing else happens. If they get a lot of them from a certain community or instance, then they discuss why those mods/admin can't keep their community in order, and if it becomes enough of a hassle, defederation or blocking is prudent.
Copyright law can be pretty ridiculous, no argument there, but this is well trodden stuff here. lemmy.world is not the first social media website that has had this concern.
In context of the admin post they responded to, it just seems like a logical suggestion (not demand). I don't agree that the admins should hand over control, but I also don't see how suggesting it warrants a ban.
I'm probably being overly cynical, but I have a pretty unflattering option of volunteer moderators and the type of people that seek out such seemingly thankless positions-- and their motivations for doing so. I know this might seem-- bizarre-- considering where I am posting this, but I think it nonetheless.
I like lemmy because there's a modlog to see these things. I do not believe that these users would be unbanned if it hadn't been noticed in the modlog. And it appears they're unbanned from the sitewide ban, but still banned in the community. Not sure what sense that makes.
If your instance gets big enough, you'll also have to deal with petty tyrants seeking out positions of petty power.
I thought we were discussing defederation. You cannot block entire instances on lemmy, that I know of.
Blocking a community does not block the users of the instance. The type of people that would naturally gravitate to, for example, a far right instance of lemmy.
Uh, @lwadmin@lemmy.world .. what's up with the banning going on in this thread? I noticed on a.lemmy.org that someone was labeled "banned" and their comment was simply "Ight, I’m out"
The mod note was "Let us help you".
There are more similarly weak (spiteful?) bans that certainly don't seem to be at a standard for a ban. "Litterally 1984" was another one. Is that all it takes to be banned here?
Edit: Many (all?) the users I referenced as banned are now unbanned from the site, but now banned from this community.
I don’t need anyone choosing for me what I should and should not see. I can (and do) do that myself, thank you.
I see this a lot, and first off, it's not true at the instance level, for lemmy-- unless there's a new option I didn't see. Second, having to block someone that suggests you should die for your skin color, after reading the comment, is not without harm. There is value in preventing the speech from being seen at all, versus blocking people after the fact.
It's obviously a generalization, but generally the people who say "just block them" are also people that haven't lived with systemic bigotry directed at them for their entire lives.
And for the record, I don't think piracy falls into this category of speech.
It's a problem of scale. If you don't defederate from a racist-focused instance (for example; hypothetically speaking), then you need to devote resources to moderating those users who make racist comments, as allowed by their instance, but directed at your users. Sure, you could do this, but it's probably smarter to just defederate and save the resources for other uses. And no moderation team is going to be flawless, so racism will still creep in and be missed by the mod team.
It might be a different story if users are given the tools to block entire instances (like kbin has) but even then I think the ROI would be low.
I know reading comprehension isn't much valued in some political circles, but I didn't say what you think I said, so I'm not sure you really mean "agreed".
Some moderation is required because an honest dialog cannot happen if all parties don't feel safe. This is not the same as "no moderation", but it's also not the same as what you pretended I said, which is "heavy moderation". I don't understand why you think this discussion in any way translates to a government, but generally speaking, the US government has less ability to "censor" than a non-government entity.
And, as I already alluded to, the result of lax moderation is bigotry and hate, every time. If I had to pick between heavy moderation or voat, and to be clear, I don't have to make that choice because there is nuance allowed, then I'd pick heavy moderation over a site infested with redhats and the like.
From the light googling I did, the military is less bigoted and extreme than the general population. So, while I would never suggest there aren't any fascists in the military, do you have any data that says there's more than a representative amount compared to the rest of the country? If not, what makes you believe that the military is pro-fascism?
An instance with no defederation policy is going to end up exactly like an instance with no moderation policy. It's going to become Voat or whatever the latest far-right website is these days.
You might be better served to seek out an instance with a transparent defederation policy, and admins that use it as a tool of last resort, instead of first resort. I was, perhaps mistakenly, under the impression that lemmy.world fit that bill, but maybe not so much.
I truly don't mean to be dense, but I don't follow. We're talking about piracy, right? What images are of concern there, and why does the first step to resolving it have to be blocking instead of communication?
I'm not here to defend that guy, but since you offered this stance, what do you think about JFK's quote
Is that an "implied" death threat?
This isn't a gotcha; I'm just curious at your personal opinion.