I know these federated communities exist as well as raddle, but it still seems like most people will stay on toxic and corporate-run platforms like reddit or Twitter. I’m far from perfect myself and I still use reddit sometimes, especially for more niche communities, but when it comes to ideologically strong communities like the anarchist ones, it just feels wrong that the majority still hang out on reddit. Or you know, moving to something like Bsky when Twitter became too toxic but which is still run by a large, for-profit corporation (if they moved in the first place). What are your thoughts? Is there any justification for this?

  • TheOubliette@lemmy.ml
    1·
    12 hours ago

    I did correct what you said. The whole past 100 years have showed us lessons. Not just these dates. This is not hard to understand.

    What I said initially: “Perhaps they are thinking of the “anarchists” that just watch YouTube videos to get angry at “the tankies” based on a misunderstanding of history in the 1920s”

    I am of course not saying “the only things are from the 1920s”, but that this is a primary focus. And when asked about the time periods you think of as primary, they popped up. Full circle, lol.

    The instances are anarchist because anarchists run them. They are not full of anarchists. An instance that is run by anarchists but open to others doesn’t always have to always require a voting by non-anarchists. There can be an internal affinity group handling this. There can be plenty of approaches to this, depending on the time and effort one can afford.

    Right so they are anarchist instances. And they make important decisions about federation by fiat of a couple admins. And that is very funny for anarchists to do. Inventing scenarios that didn’t happen to say how they are reasonable is… not relevant. In many ways you implicitly acknowledge how silly it is, because none of your examples are, “a couple admins just decide it”, instead you talk about affinity group subsets. Or is that meant to be euphemistic cover for “a couple admins”?

    Sure in a perfect world, everything would be done much more perfectly, but we do what we can with the time we have.

    Personally, I don’t think “two people make the important decisions” is complaining about imperfection when it comes to an anarchist instance. It’s really just unexamined centralization that is otherwise an implicit part of the process of hosting software. And it’s very funny.

    If only you would request the same level of purity from the authoritarian regimes you support…

    The “purity” is “basic correspondence to the core principals of what you claim to be”. I’m not a big stickler, really. But please do tell me about the regimes I support and how I am inconsistent on this. I expect you to be able to explain this without my input, as you are so certain, right?

    How is that a naturalistic fallacy?

    A short version of the naturalistic fallacy is, “what is, is what should be”. That you justify what should be simply because it is how things are done. That is the logic you presented! “You don’t vote on each ban your> admins and mods take either.”

    Did I prescribe something as “good” or whatever because of we’re doing it already? No, I said that the current practice is consistent with anarchist principles.

    You did not say the latter, actually. But you did say that you don’t vote on each ban, as if this justifies the practice. It sounds kind of like these instances should!

    To argue the opposite you have to argue 2 things. 1 that setting some rules as soon as the instance opens (including defederated instances) is anti-anarchistic. And that 2. Anarchist running an instance deciding that some instances are too toxic to federate with is a “major decision” that always requires voting.

    1. No I don’t and I already responded to that. This situation is not one of what people joined, it was a censorship decision, it required a change. Gotta flip that ‘block’ button and all that.

    2. Yes of course it is, at least if you want to say you are anarchist. That’s a major decision and it is something that even “authoritarian” instances can accomplish. I know that anarchists could do it even better!

    That’s exactly what we’re talking about! Just because we don’t do it in your approved manner doesn’t mean this isn’t exactly what we did.

    No, it is not what we are talking about.

    “And not everything is a major decision”, just ignore half of what I said, whydontcha.

    It’s funny because while I didn’t ignore that, because I’ve already directly said in no uncertain terms that I disagree 3-4 times, you ignored my response to what you said: it’s a silly straw man.

    • db0@lemmy.dbzer0.comM
      1·
      5 hours ago

      What I said initially: “Perhaps they are thinking of the “anarchists” that just watch YouTube videos to get angry at “the tankies” based on a misunderstanding of history in the 1920s”

      And I said there’s plenty of other decades with “misunderstandings”?

      And of fucking course the 20s and 30s are the primary focus because that’s the period with the last revolutionary potential which MLs squandered to build Capitalism again.

      Or is that meant to be euphemistic cover for “a couple admins”?

      No, an affinity group is an affinity group a bunch of admins is something else, but can also be valid.

      Personally, I don’t think “two people make the important decisions” is complaining about imperfection when it comes to an anarchist instance. It’s really just unexamined centralization that is otherwise an implicit part of the process of hosting software. And it’s very funny.

      There’s plenty of scenarios where anarchists take decisions without voting. Again, you don’t get to declare by fiat what is a “major decision”. But I’m glad you’re self-amused at least.

      The “purity” is “basic correspondence to the core principals of what you claim to be”.

      Nonense.

      But please do tell me about the regimes I support and how I am inconsistent on this. I expect you to be able to explain this without my input, as you are so certain, right?

      I’m pretty certain you’re a Marxist-Leninist, so you (critically?) support the usual suspects of USSR and PRC. Probably also Cuba and if you’re extreme enough North Korea. Am I wrong?

      A short version of the naturalistic fallacy is, “what is, is what should be”. That you justify what should be simply because it is how things are done. That is the logic you presented! “You don’t vote on each ban your> admins and mods take either.”

      That’s not a naturalistic fallacy. That’s me pointing out that this way of acting is obvious when you don’t decide by fiat why something is “major decision” for others. I’m also pointing out potential hypocrisy.

      You did not say the latter, actually. But you did say that you don’t vote on each ban, as if this justifies the practice. It sounds kind of like these instances should!

      No, I didn’t say that doing this justifies it. That’s bad uncharitable reading on your part to claim a fallacy. I’ve actually done “voting on every ban” so I’m familiar with how well it works. Have you?

      Just for the record, do tell, what experience do you have running an instance or a comm?

      No I don’t and I already responded to that. This situation is not one of what people joined, it was a censorship decision, it required a change. Gotta flip that ‘block’ button and all that.

      Do you know that for sure? Did you check when slrpnk defederated hexbear?

      Yes of course it is, at least if you want to say you are anarchist. That’s a major decision and it is something that even “authoritarian” instances can accomplish. I know that anarchists could do it even better!

      Again, why do you think you can declare by fiat what is a major decision?

      No, it is not what we are talking about.

      It certainly is. Again, do you know when such instances were blocked comparative to the life of the acting instance?

      It’s funny because while I didn’t ignore that, because I’ve already directly said in no uncertain terms that I disagree 3-4 times, you ignored my response to what you said: it’s a silly straw man.

      Just because you disagree what is a “major decision” for other groups of people you don’t belong to, doesn’t mean you are right. The impact of the decision and who gets to vote on it is determined by the people most affected by it. That’s the core anarchist principle you don’t seem to understand.

    • ProdigalFrog@slrpnk.netEnglish
      1·
      4 hours ago

      Perhaps they are thinking of the “anarchists” that just watch YouTube videos to get angry at “the tankies” based on a misunderstanding of history in the 1920s

      Curious what that misunderstanding is. Do you feel the betrayal of the Anarchist Kronstadt sailors, Nestor Makhno’s black army, CNT of Spain, or the lengthy list of offenses against the IWW were just an oopsie?