as to the claim that They left blahaj, beehive, etc, accusing them of transphobia.. honestly i can believe Them since otherkin/xenogender transphobia can come from anyone at this moment in time, and ive very frequently seen it come from other trans ppl.

I've actually had some very positive experiences on Blahaj with swift action on bigotry, both intentional and accidental/casual. There are of course users and opinions I disagree with, but on the stuff important to the whole of the instance, the positive action is there. Ada is firmly pro-xenogender and pro-neopronoun. And Blahaj hosts the forumverse's only dedicated Otherkin community.

Not sure what's meant by beehive. I think the people on Beehaw are really nice!

the start of this post reads like the author of it didnt even bother looking into it before judging it as not-real-anarchism.

Yeah... When I have been critical of aspects of dbzer0 in the past, this is often the uniting theme. I still appreciate all that this instance has done for the anarchist community, but I think there's a bit of work to be done around premature judgements of those who disagree with the mainstream opinions. I believe that these problems are surmountable with a bit of effort, and that we have plenty of good possible futures ahead of us.

Thanks, I have already read "Socialism: Utopian and Scientific". :p

Edit: (to disprove anything you were ever going to say)

/hj

+1 against defederation

If in fact they are the owner of all these accounts and are genuinely trolling this post accomplishes little more than giving them the attention they crave. What's to stop them from just making more new accounts and continuing to farm attention?

If they aren't trolling and do not own these alts then we are just banning someone that some people find annoying.

This proposal clearly well intentioned, but I personally feel that this is a double edged sword. The people most bothered by this individual have likely already blocked them personally. If you ban them on an instance level and they make new accounts you may unintentionally re-expose those users to this person they already saw fit to block.

Generally speaking, I avoid reference.

An amenable compromise.

You should probably make registration invite only on your instance

However generally I really dislike sockjacketing people without solid evidence, like this.

I feel the same way, and seeing it happen in the body of a governance post is disheartening. I have had serious qualms about most of the recent governance posts, and about the direction that some of the admin team seem determined to steer the ship.

I think it would be inaccurate to characterize it as the instance catering to the wrong voices. However, I am starting to accept that the climate has changed and might no longer be right for me. I believe there are many others who feel similarly.

I have long been of the opinion that the administration of any instance based around the core tenets that dbzer0 still claims should be undergo voluntary, regular rotation. Absent that, the situation is primed for the entrenchment of power and establishment of de facto hierarchies. This is true for both the admin team becoming accustomed to holding a certain level of authority, and for the userbase growing comfortable and complacent with a shift in the admin role from "caretaker" to "leader".

I question whether I am ignoring clear signals in favor of hope.

The case against defederation

Grail is neurodivergent (trans and NPD afaik), so we should be willing to make some accommodations for Their behaviour

I don't necessarily agree with this stance. Being neurodivergent is not an excuse to 1) be a raging asshole, and 2) flippantly throw baseless accusations around.

To quote a podcaster I enjoy: "Mental health isn't your fault, but it is your responsibility"

If They have enough mental capacity to spin up their own Lemmy instance, then They absolutely have enough mental capacity to understand that being an asshole is...well....a dick move. If one's neurodivergence is so severe that one cannot withhold themselves from being an asshole, then they cannot be expected to participate in otherwise civil discourse in a reasonable manner and should be removed. They have sufficiently shown that They are incapable of this without frequent intervention.

+1 for defederation.

We don't need rotations when we got admin recalls tbh. If people feel like the admins are doing a bad job they can always ask any of them to step down. Unfortunately there's nowhere near enough people who want to be admins to handle rotations

one of Their alleged alts is not banned on db0, and was last active a month ago. the others were banned 2-3 years ago afaict. this doesnt seem like an attempt at ban evasion if u ask me

Use of a single-user instance without registration limits for the owner opens the door for infinite alt accounts that cannot be realistically banned or controlled using normal mod tools, without filtering the entire instance. And that seems to be the entire purpose of this new instance- ban evasion.

what are u basing that claim on? what exactly suggests ban evasion?
two of Their alleged alts were banned 2-3 years ago, and the last one isnt even banned on db0 right now from what i can tell (was also last active a month ago).

Grail is neurodivergent (trans and NPD afaik), so we should be willing to make some accommodations for Their behaviour

.... Should we? I'm sorry, but I don't care what or how you are. If you are a bald black lesbian rocker (hello Skin, how YOU doing) that's fine, don't care. If you are nice, you're nice. If you're an asshole, I won't tolerate you and I won't care if you're trans or neurodivergent or whatever the reason is.

Nice try.

disengage

what evidence have u seen of Grail being a raging asshole flippantly throwing baseless accusations around?

i am genuinely asking, have u read the post here thoroughly and come to that conclusion, or are u trusting the judgement of the ppl involved and feel no need to confirm it urself?

Yeah, at least during high drama periods. Thanks

Hey if you don't mind me asking since you are here, would you be willing to confirm if the other accounts were you? I personally have never met you I don't believe and wasn't going to try to dig into anything to verify, but since you are here, its worth asking I figure. Whatever comes forth, wish you the best in life and may everyone leave whatever troubles behind them. In general my view was that if there isn't going to be any future qualms, then it is all moot And hopefully no one will hurt anyone else's feelings moving forward. I will have my opinions and get people upset on accident or say stupid shit while drinking (because I haven't given up that stupid habit yet and should) so I'm no innovent person myself. But if it helps others decide, responding is up to you obviously.

I deny that those other people are Me, but I'm willing to be accused of such if it helps confuse the haters. If people want to see a grand conspiracy of every annoying person on the fediverse being the same person, well at least it'll make it harder to actually compromise anyone's anonymity if they decide to lay low on a new account. I've done some reading on all the people I've been accused of being, for reasons I'm sure are obvious, and what I have concluded from all My research is that I hope they find shelter from the public eye wherever they are now.

I think the argument being made may perhaps be thus: If one assumes Me to be neurotypical, then I appear an asshole. However, with the knowledge of My identity, My behaviour is reframed. For example, one may assume I frequently fail to recognise people's faces because I don't care about others. However, when one knows that I'm autistic and have the face-blindness symptom, it becomes clear that I more often recognise people by voice and personality, and that I am not an asshole. My failure to obey typical manners is a disability, not a lack of care for others.

Defederate, no question.

Accusing people of hurting others. Which They've done both by Their electoralism and also comparing usage of AI to enslaving and killing animals (as if AI models are sentient). These are both significant forms of bad-jacketing that aren't tolerated in our community.

I once read a post on Reddit by someone who was asking if they were the asshole for breaking up with someone for calling the police on them due to a traffic violation. Said person claimed it was a coping mechanism due to their autism and anxiety. This shows that you can understand a person, and why they do things due to being neurodivergent but they are still unacceptable, and possibly even unsafe.

What Grail has been doing while not as extreme as that example, still falls firmly in the emotionally unsafe or asshole category. Things like promoting electoralism in anti-electoralist spaces and putting people down for not agreeing with Them. Things like comparing using AI with enslaving or killing animals. Things like encouraging people to brigade communities that They are personally against, then troll the mods in DMs when said mod bans them from all their communities for it.

Knowing someone is neurodivergent means you can understand why they do things. It doesn't mean we accept them or don't hold the person accountable for doing something wrong. And it definitely doesn't exclude people from consequences of doing things that are wrong. And I am neurodivergent too, Autistic and ADHD, don't think I'm ignorant of the challenges we face. The thing is we also need to work to not hurt others with our coping methods or behaviors. I say that as someone who has hurt a lot of people emotionally in my past.

While this thread is very dramatic 🍿 and I'm not sure I have / should have a voice in this, I'm concerned there may be other users on the instance (either now or in the future) that may be caught up in defederation. I'll abstain since I'm new and probably don't get a vote anyway, but I do think we should consider the effects on other users.

I'm willing to step up and do 3 months as a dbzer0 admin, if you want.

thanks for responding. the electoralism thing i can understand (altho defederation doesnt seem like a very measured response to me, especially when its not even an instance rule, but only on c/flippanarchy).

the example i found of the AI slavery situation read like a respectful disagreement to me (and is a stance that seems consistent with Their general anti-realist stance) and not like bad-jacketing, which as i understand it, calls into question the good faith of the other party and is generally disingenuous, trying to get members excommunicated for being state actors/fascists/etc.

If you decide that dbzer0 isn't for you, you'll be welcome at MULTIVERSE, which is also an anarchist instance.

So if I asked you how I should vote, how would you vote? Do you believe it's best or less. I know what I want for the future of the fediverse, but don't know what others want until I ask. I want a unified growing body, that derails corporate ownership while supporting access for all who don't have that access to exist until they breach the rights of others. That may be whatever views they have. The code here states (paraphrasing) that none shall condiscend/ look down upon, or pick a fight with one who does not choose to obstruct those rights for others. One who feels they don't want to fight but feels they could argue could say disengage. It's not always going to work. But if we try, it's a goal to aim for. I guess what I am saying is if you believe your instance won't abide by the ability to diffuse people antagonizing people, and tell the people trying to tell people to shut up and let it go without insulting either party, then you know my standing. Let the fediverse grow, delete or block those who scar your instances name and I will always stand by it

I'd prefer that you vote against the proposal by downvoting the post, because I want our instances to remain federated. I want a strong and diverse community of anarchists on the Fediverse. If every anarchist on the forumverse has to be pro-AI and anti-voting, I think of that as a bad outcome. We'd be purity testing people and excluding them from our movement for no reason. The forumverse has 5 anarchist instances. Three of them are pro-AI and anti-voting. The fourth, SLRPNK, I'm not sure on. But MULTIVERSE stands as the option for anarchists whose identity is excluded by mainstream reality, and who don't share the views of the mainstream bubble here. That diversity is our strength.

We have four rules here on MULTIVERSE. The rules are against bigotry, authoritarianism, violence, and abuse of power. Three for the users, one rule for the staff. A lot of people on dbzer0 have been banned for breaking those rules. Mostly for supporting the subjugation of nonhumans, or for fixating on electoral actions that help Trump. But I don't want to kick those people out of the entire community, like dbzer0 does for the people who are anti-AI or pro-voting. I just want to put them over there on dbzer0 where they won't bother us. They're still welcome in the broader movement, they just aren't part of our smaller cause. We want to spend our time talking to people who are open to a dialogue, to talking out our differences. Nobody who seems open to change is banned from MULTIVERSE.

One of the reasons dbzer0 has a problem with Me is, they don't say what they mean. I'm a strong believer in the idea that if you want to use power over others, you have to say what you mean. Some communities here have a rule against electoralism. But I'm not an electoralist. I think we should be focused on direct action, protest, and movement building. The electoralists are the ones who are always talking about how you should vote. I wish we had fewer conversations about voting here. But the electoralists keep on saying "you have to vote for nobody or you're not an anarchist", and then they call Me an electoralist. It's nonsense.

And that causes a problem, because I don't respect nonsense. I don't listen to someone telling Me what to do, if they won't say what they mean. If the rule is "don't be pro-voting", make the rule say that.

I may just accept that invitation.

I want to just state, They do not argue in good faith, They're a known bad actor. I had an interaction with Them and "someone" I believe was on of Their alts recently that turned into election blaming and straw man arguments. From what I have read and seen on here about Them, They're bad faith in Their actions.

You were arguing accelerationist ideology and saying Trump's presidency is good for people of colour because it'll somehow cause a communist revolution. I was talking practical revolution-building and easing the burden of the people so we can focus on overthrowing the two party system.

Are Grail and Mechoselachia the same person? The truth EXPOSED!

The fact that a blocked user can reply to someone is very unfortunate. I will add the lead up to the bad encounter was also Them pretending to be conservative, convince me of Their conservative nature, then turning around and throwing out Their manifesto. If that's not working in bad faith I do not know what else is.

I think this vote is kinda weird, because there's nothing in the actual proposal about banning Me as a user, it's all about the instance. So I would still be able to post to dbzer0 from My .world account, and I wouldn't be breaking any rules. If this vote passes, it will only affect the other users on MULTIVERSE.

So a bunch of people who are new to the fediverse don't see as much anarchist content, and y'all don't get any benefit from that. I don't see how the cost/benefit maths out.

We'll ban Your alts as well, thanks for the reminder. And yes, it's unfortunate.

This is sort of unrelated, but I really hate how the world "electoralism" gets thrown around lately, when most of the accusations are pretty far off the mark, and seem to come back around as being generally anti-democracy and edgy. I think a lot of people here genuinely do not understand the concept.

It's particularly upsetting when it's being used as a primary argument in favor of defederation over one person's alleged behavior and in this case - ideas. I have always had a soft spot for db0 but some of the recent meta seems like distractions at best

That's not in the proposal though. You can't change an instance governance proposal after people have already voted. That's not democracy.

I agree, I don't really care about voting all that much and would rather spend My time talking about how to do direct action. "You should vote against fascism" is bloody obvious and should be 1% of the conversation in anarchist circles. But dbzer0 users always want to talk about voting, always want to talk about the Democrats. I can't even remember the last conversation I had about direct action or civil disobedience on this instance.

These dbzer0 people are so obsessed with electoralism, I'm sick of it. We might have to have our own vote about defederating dbzer0 for being too obsessed with electoralism.

It's by no means the primary argument. The individual is a relentless troll and drama farmer who just happens to be cosplaying as an anarchist at the moment. The constant campaigning for the democrats was just just the icing on the cake.

You are right I think to say that people don't seem to understand our policy on electoralism. It's not so much that we don't allow any expression of electoralism, it's that be don't allow people to shame or condescend to those of our users who are anti-electoralism. That's an important distinction. Many leftists choose to vote third party, or to abstain, or to hold their nose and vote for the dems but not go on about it. And that's perfectly fine. All of the above. That's democracy in action.

Sorry matey, fuck around and find out I guess.

last i checked electoralism is not in the instance rules, there is no policy about it.

okay, what the fuck?

no, it's in some community rules

This ain't the supreme court. If I see a loophole, I close the loophole. For a defederation to be effective it will be necessary to ban alts as well.

some people use words differently than u. this is usually not a big deal if u can still communicate ur actual beliefs to each other. i went and found that interaction u describe, and it just sounds like They consider it conservative to keep positive cultural values which are very much against what thatcher and reagan advocated. someone having a different opinion than u does not mean they argue in bad faith.

for the record, i found this interaction, and this seems to be a largely correct description. one comment was kinda accelerationist-y and they also argued trump now was no worse than what the dems wouldve done (for ppl on food stamps). unfortunately lemmys ui is kinda ass so very long threads become impossible to read tho, so i could only read a large part of it.

they seemed very upset at Ur use of the word conservative to refer to positive values, which i think is understandable, but still not a sign of U being bad faith (i assume the You should be capitalized? idk sory).

EDIT: turns out i actually had read all of it, my lemmy app just sucks