Imagine my surprise when “What could Hamas do to end the violence” wasn’t just an innocent question…

Australian/British slang. It’s a disparaging term for Americans

Starts with rhyming slang

American = Yank Yank = Tank Tank = Septic Tank Septic Tank = Seppo

As I said, yes, a lemmy that bans folk like you is a lemmy that is doing something right

“What could Hamas do to end the violence?”

Nothing else.

And I got immediately banned.

Making excuses for genocide being something that gets you banned is a lemmy I’m fine with

Seppo is a really unfortunate name…

I have many issues with hexbear, but transphobia is not one of them. They are explicitly and aggressively trans inclusive

Yep, it was one of his posts referring to implementing his existing approach to AP that I was thinking off!

If I was making my living off of my name, I wouldn’t even know some random user with no followers from a troll domain exists.

Whatever the reason celebs don’t take to the fediverse, this isn’t it…

That’s why she hosts her own domain, instead of sending half a million followers to some random fediverse instance.

Why would someone host a server and pay for it out of their own pocket, when the protocol just turns in to an invisible piece of infrastructure that people don’t even know exists?

AP instances allow for communities and identity to build around them, so there is a non monetary incentive to running them, but what’s the incentive to run an equivalent on bluesky and make it public?

The proposal I saw was basically a way of “signing” your posts, and then when they federate somewhere else, you can create an account on another instance and “claim” the posts that have federated there as yours, with your private key.

Obviously, you couldn’t access posts that never federated to the instance in the first place, but even with some lost content, it would let you edit, and post new content.

And as I understood this proposal, basically, you could have multiple active accounts, all of which are “you”, and allow you to control your content with the same permissions.

There are multiple governments, political parties and hate groups explicitly focused on taking away my rights and ensuring I can’t exist safely and openly.

It’s got nothing to do with personality. I’m exposed to a barrage of hateful media targeting folk like me every single day, and it’s next to impossible to escape.

So finding spaces where I can just not have to deal with that shit is important

White listing encourages centralisation because it makes it really hard for new communities/instances to develop the trust they need to be included in existing white list circles.

Assuming that “bigots” is not a synonym for “anyone I disagree with”, then fair enough.

Why would it be?

My underlying point is that technology is making it very easy to wall ourselves off into comfortable echo chambers

Your experience is different to mine. I wish I could wall myself off from people who want to remove my rights and target me with hate, but I’ve yet to find a way of doing that.

Essentially I am saying that in a democracy we need to talk to each other

That doesn’t happen on bluesky either though. The moderation approach on bluesky means that people can control who they see, and who can interact with them. So people can still remove bigots from their timeline.

I also take issue with your insistence that bigots have the right to be bigoted and spread hate, and that their targets are somehow in the wrong for not wanting to be exposed to that hate.

We host instances for trans and gender diverse folk, to provide a space that explicitly puts their safety first.

Take away the idea of an instance as a community/identity/distinct space, and the goal for these places existing is gone. Instead of a community and a safe space, we become a generic bit of hardware that enables transphobes as much as trans folk.

That’s not something I’d be keen to keep sinking my own funds in to to support.

What I’d much rather see is instance based accounts, however, with the ability to take over/migrate them from other instances, so that if an instance goes down, people can still keep their identity. It would also allow instances focused on protecting minority communities to keep doing that.

Let me clarify so I understand your position

1. I said why I don’t use Bluesky. I didn’t say it shouldn’t exist, or that other people shouldn’t use it. I didn’t pass judgement on people who do use it, or suggest that their having a different opinion on how to deal with bigotry is an issue. I simply said why I don’t use it

2. You then insisted that I am the problem with democracy, despite you being the person insisting that everyone has to do things your preferred way?

Do I understand your position correctly?

Bluesky is explicitly promoting their system as “choose your own censorship” kind of deal

That’s why I don’t use it. I am not ok with bigots sharing my network. This is true whether I can see them or not. If they’re welcome, then I won’t be there.

Let me know when I can disconnect from spaces that host bigots rather than just hiding them

The problem is, it’s more than just the upvote. I don’t ban people for a single upvote, even on something bigoted, because it could be a misclick. What I normally do is have a look at the profiles of people who upvote dogwhistle transphobia, stuff that many cis admins wouldn’t always recognise. And those upvotes point me at people’s profiles, and if their profile is full of dog whistles, then they get pre-emptively instance banned.

I use people upvoting bigoted and transphobic content to help locate other bigoted and transphobic accounts so I can instance ban them before they post hate in to our communities.

This takes away a tool that can help protect vulnerable communities, whilst doing nothing to protect them.

It’s a step backwards