That post explicitly says itās not a place for debate or participation from users of other instances.
Iād like to respect that but I think events like this need debate and discussion because it helps to develop and evolve the culture of lemmy and the fediverse in general.
The post says:
This post is āFYI onlyā for blahaj lemmy members. It is not a debate, and is not intended for non blahaj lemmy users to weigh in and offer opinions.
I recently received reports of a feddit.uk user espousing transphobia. Specifically, this was a feddit.uk user refusing to use the word cis, repeating the āadult human femaleā dog whistle, and claiming that trans women are not women. I approached a member of the feddit.uk admin team and raised my concerns and sought clarification of their stance on posts like this, where the transphobia is mostly dogwhistles, and ācivil disagreementā on the validity of trans folk.
I was told by the feddit.uk admin that their preferred response is this kind of transphobia is to āsort it out through discussion and votingā. However, the comments in question are currently more upvoted than downvoted, and little āsorting outā has occurred. The posts remain in place.
At this point, the admin stopped responding to my messages despite being active elsewhere on lemmy. When it became clear they were ignoring my messages and had no intention of removing the posts in question, I made the decision to defederate the instance.
I know some folk agree with the feddit.uk admins approach of pushback through discussion and voting, but this instance is not designed to be that kind of space. Blahaj lemmy is meant to be a place where we can avoid the rampant transphobia universally visible on nearly every other social media platform, and where we can exist without needing to debate our right to do so.
How do you know the poster is full of shit? You didnāt even ask for the source.
Also defederating from an instance while not including the actual offending content is not very transparent.
Because no one, not even the admins of feddit.uk, has stated the offending comment directly. It would be weird for a user of a different instance to be the only one in the know.
In this case, transparency has taken a backseat to preventing brigading, which I accept as a perfectly valid reason not to disclose. Considering Iām a user of the instance, my opinion here is actually important, because itās not her job to be transparent with users elsewhere. Not even feddit.ukās users, the admins there have the context and if they decide to share it is up to them.
But you didnāt ask the user how he got it! Surely before claiming that he is full of shit, you could have spent ~10 seconds typing out, āwhat is your source?ā I didnāt see you do that in piefed thread.
BLZ can do whatever, but others are also allowed to make their own conclusions about the possible reasons for the lack of transparency.
Theyāre the only person in this thread trying to sow division and call the Blahaj admins decision into question, besides you of course. I donāt need to assume the best intentions in that case, and can draw my own conclusions. As a trans person, if I gave everyone the benefit of the doubt all of the time, Iād expose myself to far too much hatred.
If you want to choose to believe the reason is anything other than āto prevent brigadingā than thatās up to you. feddit.uk admins seem to know the context, like I said before, so I donāt see how Ada could be lying hereā¦
Youāre welcome to assume bad faith or not bother, itās your right.
The fact remains, you donāt know whether Pondercat is full of shit or not. You donāt have any evidence and you are not interested in interacting with Pondercat.
"Prevent brigadingā is irrelevant at this point, the text is out, so you cannot prevent brigading if itās real. So the question about transparency remains.
Pointing out clear lapses in logic is not āsowing divisionā.
Have you actually followed the link above? It says āI think these are [the comments]ā.
I never said anything here was āsowing divisionā, please attribute that quote properly?(Edit: Apologies, I got my comment threads confused) While youāre at it, care to explain how preventing brigading is āa clear lapse of logicā because there are plenty of other people in this thread that understood and even lauded that decision. Or donāt bother? Iām not going to keep engaging with you.I have, yes. Nothing about the statement implies Pondercat is full of shit (i.e. lying).
Because if the text is correct, the argument that you want to prevent brigading isnāt relevant anymore. If the text is incorrect and one is concerned about brigading, then one would openly let everyone know that Pondercat has the wrong text.
deleted by creator