Hey, I just did a quick browse through the blocked instances list for infosec.pub and have a few questions about it. Seems like we are blocking sh.itjust.works which at first glance just looks like one of the bigger general purpose instances. Meanwhile more overtly problematic instances like lemmygrad (tankie instance) or exploding heads (“free speech extremists”) are federated with. Generally the block list seems fairly small compared to a lot of other instances.

So are these intentional choices or is it more a matter of the admins not (having the time to be) bothering with it? If it’s not intentional, maybe checking some other instances blocklists to weed out the biggest trolls/offenders could be useful.

  • stilgar [he/him] @infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    The admins defedded from SJW because of the quantity of CP and other objectionable material coming from there. It was a matter of their modding workload, not anything to do with politics.

    The line in this instance is to not use defederation as a political tool, and that is IMO correct. At least that’s one of the main reasons I chose this instance.

    • fr0g@infosec.pubOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      The line in this instance is to not use defederation as a political tool, and that is IMO correct

      That doesn’t really mean anything imo. Not defederating is just as much a political decision as defederating is. There’s no way around taking some sort of stance, intentional or not.

      • stilgar [he/him] @infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Of course it means something.

        Yes, it is a political decision in the sense that politics pervades all human activities and decisions.

        But it is obviously a different choice to that of many instances, where they actively use defederation as a tool to shield their users from any political opinions outside the mainstream.

        The admins here have chosen not to use defederation as a tool in this way and I applaud them for it.

  • jerry@infosec.pubM
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    I block them as they come up as problematic. There isn’t a handy list of instances to block like in mastodon. I will block those others.

  • jonne@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    You can block problematic users/instances yourself if they bother you. I just blocked all of exploding-heads and haven’t seen any of their shit since.

    • CoderKat@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      IMO it’s not a good solution to just say “just block the bigots”. The problem is that for new users, they are going to see those bigoted posts. They’re going to either think that’s what kind of site Lemmy is and potentially leave, or they’ll potentially get pulled in by the bigots. Both are bad situations.

      Especially for blatant bigotry, it makes perfect sense to take measures to ensure that the site is safe for everyone by default, without every individual person having to take action (especially those without accounts or not signed in).

      • mwguy@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        So lemmy needs a “soft” block. A system that moderates it out of the default streams, but allows an individual user to still add communities they want to see in their subscriptions.

    • jerry@infosec.pubM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      What site is the “loud extremists”?

      I block instances that are the source of issues - shitjustworks caused a river of complaints - I don’t think I’ve seen any from the others.