FediLore + Fedidrama
Rules
- Any drama must be posted as an observer, you cannot post drama that you are involved with.
- When posting screenshots of drama, you must obscure the identity of all the participants.
- The poster must have a credible post and comment history before submitting a piece of history. This is to avoid sock-puppetry and witch hunts.
The usual instance-wide rules also apply.
Chronicle the life and tale of the fediverse (+ matrix)
Largely a sublemmy about capturing drama, from fediverse spanning drama to just lemmy drama.
Includes lore like how a instance got it's name, how an instance got defederated, how an admin got doxxed, fedihistory etc
(New) This sub's intentions is to an archive/newspaper, as in preferably don't get into fights with each other or the ppl featured in the drama
Tags: fediverse news, lemmy news, lemmyverse
Partners:
I'm coming to this specific post late.
But I do wanna say that I've had interactions with the .uk admins over the last year or so. Their user histories exist.
I think it important to note that the individual admins have been public in their support of trans issues. While the slow response is definitely an issue, try not to villainize them without something concrete to back that up. Any of us that disagree with the delay in particular (and please note the inclusive plural), remember that someone can make a bad choice and still be an ally.
Yeah, the optimum response would have been immediate action via comment removals, with debate to follow and reinstatement if merited after debate; combined with prompt communication (within a realistic range of prompt for someone not glued to their instance 24/7). But optimum isn't always going to happen. My grumpy, cantankerous old ass is not often optimum, so I sure can't hold delays and iffy reasoning against anyone else, as long as they get there eventually.
Hi, Feddit UK admin here, I'd just like to add a bit more context. We're currently discussing these comments in an admin chat, though this was apparently not communicated to Ada so she got the impression inaction was our position. Our position is not inaction, but these specific comments have become wrapped up in a policy discussion on how we facilitate discussion of our state's increasing hostile actions without allowing transphobia to propagate. I hope we can rectify the situation soon, but doing things by committee is never swift.
Ada has said that she defederated because of a lack of response, not the content itself.
Extra context is helpful, thanks.
While the underlying issue swirling around the UK courts' confusion of gender vs. sex, male vs. female is just as confusing to me and I have no clear answers for that, the Blahaj admin's move is I think the right one.
That instance prides itself as being a safe-space for LGBTQ+ folks, so explicitly allowing behaviour that does not recognize its users' identities, is reasonable grounds for defederation.
I think it seems justified. Ava's moderation approach may seem heavy handed, but she hasn't done anything unjustified.
Yeah, this is just the Fediverse operating as intended. Some instances are heavily federated, others are less so. This gives people options.
Defederate an instance because of a single problematic user doesn't feel right.
But also defederate an instance because their admins don't comply their own rules doesn't feel wrong.
I'd argue it wasn't defederated because of one user, it was defederating because of a fundamental disagreement in moderation policies.
The one user could've been saying anything people could find deplorable. It was that the admin chose to be hands-off about it that pulled the trigger.
Which is a good thing, in that servers are allowed to decide how they want to handle moderation, and other server owners are allowed to decide if they accept that, or if they expect the moderation will lead to continued problems of the same vein down the road. The fediverse working as intended.
Well said. It's curious how marginalized people's decisions to protect themselves are always up for debate. If someone doesn't agree with this moderation decision, cool, don't use Blahaj.
For anyone who's curious about the actual messages, I think these are them:
A woman is an adult female. A transwoman is an adult female who used to be male. It’s not difficult to grasp that they are different things. You can admit that and still believe that transwomen should be treated with dignity like anyone else.
Personally I don’t give a shit what bathroom people use or what they want to be referred to. I’ll go along with whatever… But a woman and a transwoman are different things, and it’s disingenuous to pretend otherwise. Always have been different things and always will be, no matter what the law states, now or in the future.
Kier’s words are still not transphobia. There is no fear, dislike, prejudice, discrimination, harassment, or violence in his statement. The scream of ‘transphobia’ is thrown around too much for anyone who disagrees with a narrow definition. Any disagreement is labelled as hate, and it’s silly.
Should a transwoman have the same rights and respect and opportunity as a woman (as per the legal definition)? Absolutely. Are they the same? No, they are not. Is that a hateful bigoted viewpoint worthy of scorn? I don’t believe so.
I don’t use the term cis. I use the term woman and you knew exactly what I meant. A blonde woman is a description of a woman’s hair colour and is a semantic-based response that is nothing to do with this point. You know this; it’s a foolish riposte that’s nothing at all to do with the clear and simple fact that a woman who used to be a man is not the same thing as a (cis) woman.
I can call it a woman who used to have a penis or a woman who used to be a man if you want me to be pedantic about it. Nothing to do with hair colour, or skin colour, or anything else except previously being a biological male and now identifying as a woman.
‘adult human female’ is not a dog whistle. It’s a legal and common-sense definition that you clearly understand but are trying to make out to be hate for some reason. I am not denying the legitimacy of transwomen; nor is Keir.
Transwomen and (cis) women are different things. And Transmen and (cis) men are different things. They have different names, which you yourself use for a reason. That reason being they are not the same thing. This is exactly the same as saying transwomen are not women, because they are not. They are transwomen.
It’s pretty simple.
I disagree with this, and I'd downvote it, but it sounds like they're just repeating what the supreme court said. I don't think it deserves a ban.
Completely defederating with us over this is insane
That’s actually not nearly as extreme as I was expecting
It's worse imo, because it's the sneaky "reasonable" tactic that tries to pretend disconnection from its agenda. It's a filthy lying hat full of shit that doesn't even have the balls to present itself in truth.
And it works, because when people see straight through it and call it out for what it is, we end up with "concerned" and well meaning groups gathering themselves together discussing in depth whether or not it was reallly that bad and the overton window shifts further rightward.
Just because it's have a cordial tone, but it's pretty tranphobic all around the place. Master class on sealioning.