meta, infosec.exchange
The current situation with infosec.exchange is a great example of why "cop-friendly" instance are viewed with great suspicion by marginalized folks, and why that isn't an overreaction
Because *every fucking time* it turns out there's more horrible shit down the road, with the admin not understanding the threats that marginalized folks face, consent violations, and so on
And yes, there is absolutely a link between "cop-friendly" and "bad moderation or abuse down the line", because they both originate from the exact same problematic ideology that reasons only from a privileged perspective, and does not take the concerns of marginalized folks seriously
re: meta, infosec.exchange
(Context for those unaware: https://pleroma.envs.net/objects/c1cd6fa1-147d-4cbf-8b87-bec64b9a4293)
re: meta, infosec.exchange
@joepie91 it is worth noting that the character in this story has threatened legal action against another instance for defederation, claiming that one reason was cited for that defederation, and (the part I kept the receipt for, different reason than was cited for initial defederation) used abelist language when referring to someone else's behavior on the fediverse.
Also, they were on a lot of the early "who you should follow" lists.
re: meta, infosec.exchange
@rallias That part about the lists - can you elaborate? That's new to me.
re: meta, infosec.exchange
@joepie91 and they were on multiple lists that I remember seeing at the time.
re: meta, infosec.exchange
@joepie91 so, I don't have receipts on that aspect, but before I observed their negative behavior, my @rallias@hax.technology account had followed them, and positionally, they were followed when I had added a couple of suggested mastodon follow lists.