It's how it's used as a tactic, instead of a complaint. It's a way to discredit, not engage in discourse.

are you saying that bad-jacketing someone of being a fascist (but not a cop) is also banned by our instance's rules?

Admittedly I haven't caught up on the drama about this particular user for a while, and admittedly it's worthy of note that when the drama was only about accounts named Dragonfucker, I did not find Their actions remotely worthy of an instance ban.

Strange, I had to open them from another instance to find their history. Let me try from
here again.

Edit: Must have been a jerboa thing. If I copied the link to Opera it worked fine, but within jerboa no good.

You'd have to ask the Lemmy devs, but it is a serious flaw, and in some cases effects community bans too. I've had trolls come back to my communities after being instance banned from here when that happens.

Creating new instances or changing domains can get around defederation, but since domains cost money it would be very slow and they lose their investment each time they are defederated. Which is probably why it doesn't get done often.

Unbanning yourself locally as an admin is free and can be repeated over and over.

Of course, I’ve yet to hear if they can simply start a new instance when their current one gets banned, and unban themselves again. 🤢

They could but they would be easily defederated again, and domains cost money so it would be a long game that They would ultimately lose.

Yes

Yeah they could just rename their instance and come from another IP address. The only way you would get around that would be whitelisting instances instead of blacklisting them. Which overall would greatly hurt the growth and purpose of federation (in my personal opinion, others would disagree I'm sure).

Sorry to use the trope of comparing to email, but it would be the same thing as you banning an email domain, and them creating a different one. Your filters don't know to block them. Hosting an instance from a dedicated IP that isn't identifying their home residence would be the preferred method for most I would assume.

Grail literally came into our instance !yepowertrippinbastards@lemmy.dbzer0.com and started spouting Electoralist apologia in multiple threads. It's clearly visible in Their modlog and some comments are still up in YPTB.

I guess you are going to have to defederate from every single non-anarchist instance as well

Nice false dilemma, this is only a discussion because Grail is the admin of Their own server. If another server owner was doing this we'd be having the same discussion. If some idiot on Lemmy.world wad doing it we wouldn't, they'd just get site banned. Thanks for letting everyone know you never had any intention of participating in good faith discussion.

personally i find they can be a bit groupthink-like though... not as in expression of dissent is socially suppressed, but as in expressed dissent on lynchmob topics is not objectively evaluated.

like in the replies to https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/63525728/24345496, an unfortunately quite emotional comment that does argue against some evidence—replies saying that the person they're replying to should die—the users who had already voted before the comment either 1. argue such replies have no problem since the person they're replying to are bad; or 2. repeat the claims said evidence were used to back up without presenting their own evidence.

I am very concerned if the rules of this anarchist instance are changing without awareness, announcement, or other transparency.

Edit: It turns out I'd missed the line in the definition I linked to including fascism. (Still a little unsure how we can confidently apply this part of the rule, because I wouldn't want us calling tankies and US libs right-wing; and pro-Zionists fascists; to be deemed of "flimsy evidence" by other instances, and the reason I'm an anarchist is I doubt the ability of the ruling hierarchy to always make the right decisions in important areas like open discourse, but) My bad.

Pretty sure it's been that way since before I was here. I think it's always been that way, I can't see why it would be okay to accuse others of being fascists, pedophiles, antisemites, or anything else disgusting like that without evidence just to discredit or shut them up. That's definitely against the spirit of this place.

@Flatworm7591@lemmy.dbzer0.com Could you clarify? Was this a change to the rules or has it always been that bad-jacketing was something more than accusing people of being a cop?

Okay as someone who wasn't even familiar with the term until I saw you both discussing it... Do you mind explaining it more to me? Is it just labeling someone something out of distrust of their words/opinion? (Just a guess based off the context clues from this discussion, I may be way off)

yep, I also just learned it, but from what I understood on this thread it's bad-jacketing when someone calls you a tankie, but not when you call someone a liberal.

Sorry, I thought it was explicit on my first comment that I don't care about this voting and I find the whole thing risible - but my argument was about their "electoralism" being on other instance, the post didn't present it here.

ps: I still haven't found that rule about "electoralism" though, did I miss some link I should check? https://wiki.dbzer0.com/divisions-by-zero/the-golden-rules/ https://wiki.dbzer0.com/divisions-by-zero/the-anarchist-code-of-conduct/

Bad-jacketing is when you make accusations of being a fascist, bootlicker, antisemite, or pedophile to people who are not to discredit them. It hinges on the accusation not having merit. Like if someone said db0 is a fascist.

Calling someone who is acting like a liberal, fascist, or tankie and is openly promoting those views is not bad-jacketing it is a statement of fact.

Would you mind telling me how that differs or why it would have to exist seperate if the code of conduct already states calling someone Tankie, Liberal, Fascist or otherwise would be considered unacceptable? Honestly we would have so many bans if it were followed, but disrespecting or insulting someone who agrees with MAGA, Democrats, the IDF, or such is already unallowed.

"What is Unacceptable
Degrading, disrespecting, or insulting another person or group of people, because of their :

Acceptance of any unfavorable or disfavorable group, whether this group is political, economic, social, or cultural."

“Bad-jacketing” (or “cop-jacketing,” “fed-jacketing,” or “snitch-jacketing”) is the practice of accusing people of being a cop, informant, fascist, or other kind of bad actor on specious or non-existent evidence.

See https://anarchist-archive.org/library/en/anonymous-not-liking-someone-doesnt-mean-theyre-a-cop-on-bad-jacketing for a more thorough description. That bad-jacketing rule has been linked as part of the golden rules for years.

It's basically just a shitty thing to do. Having said that, the important part is the evidence. If there is evidence someone is being fascist then there's no problem with making the claim. What is problematic is when there is no evidence, or the evidence is to the contrary.

“Bad-jacketing” (or “cop-jacketing,” “fed-jacketing,” or “snitch-jacketing”) is the practice of accusing people of being a cop, informant, fascist, or other kind of bad actor on specious or non-existent evidence.

See https://anarchist-archive.org/library/en/anonymous-not-liking-someone-doesnt-mean-theyre-a-cop-on-bad-jacketing for a more thorough description. That bad-jacketing rule has been linked as part of the golden rules for years.

It’s basically just a shitty thing to do. Having said that, the important part is the evidence. If there is evidence someone is being fascist then there’s no problem with making the claim. What is problematic is when there is no evidence, or the evidence is to the contrary.

Thanks a lot, that's great feedback.

Appreciate your comments Gary, and I was trying to channel you in the against section :p

Agreed with the case for this being more of a ban/block situation. If their establishment of an instance is used to evade bans and blocks, then defed.

We don't have an instance wide rule about it. But some communities have such rules, e.g., c/flippanarchy rule 7.

The only time I interacted with this user was when They went by the name of Drag. At the time, it was the 2024 US General Election, and They were a big pain in the ass. I might have blocked Them then and there because I don't recall seeing Them again on Lemmy, or any of Their aliases.

I have a brief snapshot of the user. They could be "normal" under any other context but politics, but I haven't seen it.

db0 has a clear charter that is fundamentally political in nature. I don't have any confidence that this user won't monolothize our instance and force things to be political, without giving any of our users the benefit of the doubt that they're their own individuals which happen to align on politics. And of course, we have to put in extra effort to accommodate Their neurodivergency - which isn't to say we shouldn't accommodate them. All genders deserve (digital) dignity, respect, and inclusion. Just because someone is divergent in their gender doesn't give them a blank check to withhold that same right to others. There is a social contract of tolerance here, regardless of the actors and however different those actors may be.

Another side of the conversation is what impact this person has on db0. If They're abusing their admin and mod powers on Their own instance, where people are free to post content according to the instance rules, what's to say that said content is given the same protections and said users are given the same rights and freedoms that we enjoy on db0? Is it within our power to protect those people from Drag or Grail or whichever name They go by? Are we the police of the Fediverse? I think db0 is the exact opposite. We allow freedom of thought, freedom of expression.

I guess the question is if this user and Their instance prevents db0 from carrying out that mission.

Still making up my mind myself!

Edit: I'm abstaining from this one until we have evidence that these users are one and the same identity (or system of identities like with Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID) as others have pointed out). While single-admin users are suspect for the reasons people point out (e.g. users of their own instance can globally undo all bans on the Fediverse if they ban themselves on their own instance, then subsequently unban themselves), are there other instances out there that only have 1 admin and have a considerably large user base? I feel like we need to refine our rules regarding defederation for this reason or risk a larger exclusion from the wider Fediverse.

Also, getting back to impact, how much impact does Grail/Drag have on the Fediverse compared to the Zionist instance we defederated from the other month ago (we did defederate right?)? There being a place on the Fediverse where individuals of a similar immoral ideology culminate to organize and execute broad actions (e.g. brigade) is different than one individual (or system of individuals as is the case with DID) setting up their own instance to ban evade. Sure db0 users may want nothing to do with either case, but one problematic user can be managed by db0 users compared to organized communities of problematic users.

Addendum: I do not agree that anyone else can compel my use of capital or lowercase.

This isn't a good hill to die on, this is just encouraging misgendering. If someone asks you to use their preferred pronouns and that includes capitalization you kind of need to respect it or you're an asshole. Grail prefers people address Them with capitalized They/Them pronouns, you should respect Their wishes. Arguing against that isn't productive.

I thought it was instance wide, I've seen comments removed for it outside of those specific communities.

Disagree, on the basis that capital/lowercase do not inherently change a word. The word is still the same word, despite the case of the first (or any) letter. Spoken aloud, would there be any difference? Is there any way to discern the case of any part of the word in such a circumstance, or are they equivalent? Attempting to dictate case is, at best, performative.

That said, I typically don't refer to Grail at all. I see little benefit in doing so. I can't imagine many interactions that would enrich either party.

This, however, is not the place for discussion of such. It is a place to ponder defederation. As much as I dislike Grail and find prescriptive casing to be an exercise in ridiculosity, I do not see ample reason to persue defederation. As I understand it, the point has become halfway moot, as defed has occured from the other direction.

P.S., Please be sure to use Grail's preferred pronouns of "capitalised They/Them", so we don't have to remove comments for misgendering.

You were asked by our admin. It is not optional. This is not the time or place to debate the merit of people's pronouns or how much you think it matters, and you should not have added it to your comment in the first place. When someone asks you to respect preferred pronouns you do it without question, because it's a sign of basic human respect.

As I understand it, the point has become halfway moot, as defed has occured from the other direction.

Uh source? I just checked and we're still federated both sides.

I'll add whatever to my comments that I wish, thank you kindly. Excellent job of repeating my sentiment that it isn't the time and place for that discussion, terrible follow through on the concept. Police yourself, not me.

I could be mistaken about the defederation from the other side. I saw someone else's comment suggesting that it had taken place, and I did not care enough to find out further if it had or had not. It does not change my stance that we should not defed.

Edit: By the by, the source of "as I understand it" is my own understanding. I would have assumed that was clear, I suppose I'm doubly mistaken.

On one hand, yeah they can be really annoying.

On the other, all they're pretty much doing is talking about their voodoo reality shit (which often can be really funny) and politics in a way that's not too different from .world'ers.

I did interact with this user directly and while my experience with them was negative, completely disappearing them for a wrong kind of LARP that's already prevalent in other instances and sometimes being annoying seems way too extreme.

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

It is an insult to every neurodivergent person who has their shit together, if you tolerate this sort of behavior just because they are “different”.

No tolerance for the intolerant. Defederate.

Flatwork7591: thank you very much for this very informative post and giving us the possibility to be heard.

I agree with this. Really appreciate the community in these topics but I've never come across this user (and also don't care) so it's no use for me to vote on this.

Yeah I've also removed a few comments in yptb where people were shaming our users for anti-electoralism. We are an anarchist instance, and thus a certain level of anti-electoralism is to be expected. I don't want our users to be lectured to by anyone about how we are somehow the problem that gave rise to far right dominance in the US, instead of the neoliberal, zionist, corporate-teat-addicted DNC who are widely disliked even by their own constituency.

As a trans and neurodivergent person myself I agree. Community standards need to be upheld, and people who are unsafe or harmful need to be removed.

oh huh I didn't realize Grail was Drag but it tracks. i appreciated that Drag's pronouns made me think about pronouns in a way that they/them hasn't for a long time. that said, I can understand the people who felt it was "attack helicopter" adjacent (patently not the blatantly transphobic camp, and there were a lot of them)

I think They are harmless and defederating is too extreme. the crime of being annoying doesn't warrant excommunication, I think people can individually block if they find Them annoying (cool that Their pronouns make that sentence make sense in a way it wouldn't without the capitalization :P )

I think it would be reasonable to reassess this proposal if They started doing targeted harassment of our users or communities but I don't think They are.

also, I feel like a lot of the emotions involved here have more to do with the alts/priors than Grail Themself. have They specifically said anywhere that those are accounts They ran or is there some other definitive proof of those accounts all being the same person behind them?

I'm not doubting the connection, merely asking because if the accounts aren't definitely the same person I think that changes things

It kind of should be an instance-wide policy. Electoralism very often only serves to degrade and blame anarchists for the harm caused by fascists. It's not like Electoralist views are fringe or marginalized, people can go elsewhere to talk about them, they don't need to come into leftist safe spaces.

what is your definition of intolerant here? I've seen some atrocious takes (multiple in this post tbh) but nothing I would consider truly intolerant...

(i promise this isn't sealioning, I'm sure I haven't seen the worst of it)

all very reasonable before the addendum, you're being transphobic. the question of "would you be able to tell when spoken?" is moot because we're not speaking. we're on the internet where you can tell.

that's all to say, I appreciate your arguments that are relevant and not your transphobic irrelevant little nugget (that you were specifically asked not to attempt to relitigate) at the end

Lemmy is full of horrible design oversights. The devs are the worst compared to PieFed.

last paragraph is super based. people deserve basic respect even if they are a dick, and also deserve to be called a dick if they are being a dick.

that said, I think your main argument is kinda a slippery slope fallacy. that's to say I think if we do end up having a flood of bad actors from this instance, we should poll this again with that as the reason why. i don't think defed because "They have the opportunity to flood bad actors" is reasonable, personally.

It already is there instance, they are all the admins.

well that is a much worse accusation than anything in the main post, do you have receipts of it?

no worries if you don't want to make them, but if substantiated that might be enough to convince me to defed

i feel like a broken record here but I feel like defed on the back of "They could do this thing" is unreasonable.

if that does happen I say we should defed immediately and I think a vote on "They unbanned Themself" would definitely pass.

p.s. you missed a couple capitals near the end I think, unintentionally I'm sure

Is it really a slippery slope when its a slowly repeating pattern from a known bad actor?