Why YSK: Beehaw defederated from Lemmy.World and Sh.itjust.works effectively shadowbanning anyone from those instances. You will not be able to interact with their users or posts.

Edit: A lot of people are asking why Beehaw did this. I want to keep this post informational and not color it with my personal opinion. I am adding a link to the Beehaw announcement if you are interested in reading it, you can form your own views. https://beehaw.org/post/567170

  • rwhitisissle@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    By your logic, any position in any institution with any authority of any kind over literally anything or anyone is a “governing body.” Which is, to be perfectly honest, very dumb if you genuinely believe that. It means any moderator of any website is, by your definition, authoritarian because they’ll ban you for breaking the rules. I’m guessing you think lemmy.ca, lemmy.world, and every other lemmy instance with any kind of moderation is by definition authoritarian in its organization. In which case, I have to wonder…why are you even here if you hate it so much?

    • CorruptBuddha
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      By your logic

      Not by my logic, that’s how it is, admins govern over communities.

      I can understand why my perspective upsets you, you’re controlling my dude.

      • rwhitisissle@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        So you admit that you think that literally every mod on every lemmy instance is by definition an authoritarian political entity? Cool. I mean, you’re wrong and it’s kinda weird to single out one instance for it, but you do you.

          • rwhitisissle@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            That doesn’t fit here because your own initial argument isn’t really even an argument. It’s just the assertion that “Beehaw is authoritarian,” lacking any supporting argumentation or evidence. I can’t misrepresent your argument because you don’t even really have an argument. And you’re effectively admitting to being unable to answer the question: what makes Beehaw’s moderators authoritarian but lemmy.ca or another’s not? If you’re unable to answer that question, then maybe you just have a weird chip on your shoulder, or maybe you got banned for using a slur and are bitter about it? I don’t know what it is, but if you can’t defend your own position then you might wanna do the mature thing and admit it.

            • CorruptBuddha
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              That doesn’t fit here because your own initial argument isn’t really even an argument.

              Sure it does, your inability, or unwillingness to understand isn’t really my problem. Beehaw is a politically authoritian echochamber. And I’m not talking about “slurs” as you ignorantly believe, you are not allowed to have politically contrary opinions, that’s how the friggen echochamber is maintained.

              Anything else you’d like to say?

              • rwhitisissle@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                It’s not authoritarianism if your participation is voluntary, bud. Your opinion, as horrific as I can only imagine it is, might not be allowed on Beehaw, but Beehaw moderators can’t make you go there and post, either. If you invite someone over to your house and then they start telling you in the middle of dinner they think “[insert group here] deserves the gas chambers,” that might be “just an opinion” to them, but you’d be well within your rights to ask them to leave. You’re not an “authoritarian” for not tolerating their “difference of opinion,” because they have no real right to be there without your consent in the first place. Same deal with any lemmy instance. I’m sorry your feelings are hurt that other people aren’t obligated to listen to whatever odious beliefs you have, but I think this XKCD sums it up best.

                • CorruptBuddha
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  It’s not authoritarianism if your participation is voluntary, bud.

                  I’m voluntarily having this conversation, but that doesn’t make you any less authoritarian.

                  Being well within your right to do something doesn’t make it not authoritatian.

                  If you invited me over for a party, and then kicked me out for a political opinion, yes that’s authoritianism.

                  • rwhitisissle@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Okay, so, first of all, thank you. I’m really glad you made this comment because it basically just proves by pure example that you literally just don’t know what the definition of the word “authoritarian” is.

                    It’s ironic, really, because your own definition of authoritarianism (which is pretty much just people creating and enforcing rules for how you interact with them) implies that what you really don’t like is the fact that you lack the ability to force your own will on others. Beehaw’s administrators and moderators don’t want you there because you insist on being able to voice beliefs that they find offensive or dangerous, but the implication of your criticism of them as “authoritarian” is that you think they shouldn’t have the power to keep you out, and that you should have the power to come and go as you please and to say whatever you want without consequence or censure. In other words, you want the authority to force others to cater to your desires and to run the website in a way that benefits you, at the cost of what others may want. If others don’t want to be around you or interact with you because they find the way you act to be harmful or offensive, but you think they should be forced to tolerate your presence and be forced to interact with you regardless, then you’re saying you think you should be able to impose your own will over theirs.

                    Does this…remind you of anything?