Sven Slootweg (soft-deprecated) @joepie91@pixie.town

@samgai @StroomAfwaarts Oh yeah that just goes into bucket 2 for me nowadays

@Leiracal@tech.lgbt Honestly, I don't see any of that reflected in tech.lgbt's reason for defederation, which seems to boil down to basically this: https://social.pixie.town/@joepie91/109863561597630546

Given that there is an unresolved issue of rapist shielding, I'd say that *that* should be the center of the conversation, and not some nebulous notion of defederation "having gone too far" (something that is a recurring claim in such cases involving abuser shielding, I should note).

What destroyed the community is the abuse, not the defederation. And that is where the focus should lie.

@StroomAfwaarts Well, more like four, I guess:
1. Trying to sound cutesy but actually sounds like a creep (eg. asbestos dot cafe, coolsite dot win)
2. Outright fascist/macho-sounding names (eg. stormcloak dot info, zyzzsupremacy dot xyz)
3. Weird "Japanese-inspired" names
4. Dodgy sounding domain hacks (eg. bae dot st)

@Leiracal@tech.lgbt I'm not sure I understand your concern. The alarm was raised about eightpoint months(?) ago (repeatedly, even), with many offers for eightpoint users to move over to other instances. That doesn't seem like 'isolating users' to me? The current defederation just seems like a 'next step' in that process.

As for receipts of that person being an LB alt in the first place, this *was* actually provided, in the form of a 'slip of the tongue' from that person themselves. I unfortunately don't have a link handy now, but it was fairly widely shared at that time. It was later also explicitly confirmed by other eightpoint staff.

@jacksonchen666 @marcan@treehouse.systems (Also, if this was indeed a good-faith question, apologies for being a bit cold in my response. I've unfortunately had to deal with a lot of necrocomputing enthusiasts who ask exactly this type of question in bad faith.)

@jordan Yeahhhh

@mycorrhiza I haven't seen that specific toot, but usually when people are overall positive about fedi but are still listing "no VCs" as a con... they seem to be in a sort of weird mid-learning state where they've recognized that fedi is much nicer, but not yet *why* it is much nicer, and are still clinging on to the propagandized ideas of capital being a necessary ingredient for anything to work.

I suspect they'll come around.

@Leiracal@tech.lgbt I should note that I have my own issues with kolektiva, and I feel that they're overall doing a poor job moderating abusive behaviour themselves (albeit of a different nature). As is unfortunately more common than it should be for radical spaces.

So while I might defend behaviour from individual users, you wouldn't find me defending kolektiva users *categorically*.

That having been said: I understand the call for receipts, but these are the kinds of cases where they are difficult to provide. They're often extremely personal incidents, where the victims may not feel comfortable speaking out about it publicly and essentially reliving their trauma.

This is not unlike the broader societal problem with rape accountability and demands for 'proof' of it.

(Some people *have* personally spoken out about how LB has abused them, a few months ago.)

An additional problem is... this has been ongoing for 10+ years. While it certainly would be *possible* to collectively construct a decade worth of receipts from various communities, that gets awfully close to the format of a Kiwi Farms page, and is likely to be used as one too.

Contrary to popular claims, a lot of people *are* actually happy to see someone become a better person, atone for their past harm, and pick things up again. Such a compilation of receipts would very likely prevent that from happening, due to KF types using it as a long-term harassment vector.

The fallout sucks, but the harsh reality is that *a lot* of people still default to siding with a charismatic abuser, and either do not understand or do not *want* to understand what it takes to repair harm and deal with the long term of abuse.

Those people are an actual threat to vulnerable communities, particularly if they are *in charge of* such a community. Defederation under those circumstances is a safety mechanism to isolate the problem.

I do not see that getting fixed until people learn to deal with abuse in a healthy manner. It sucks, but people continuing to be abused sucks more.

@whatanerd I broadly agree with you. But please do keep in mind that voluntary and organising spaces are not always voluntary for everybody, even if they're not workplaces - a lot of people are dependent on them for their social support net.

@whatanerd Sure, I more mean it from a perspective of "you can't *expect* from those people to do that, in a 'taking a stance' sense".

Ultimately the responsibility for the problem lies with the abusive individuals and those shielding them.

@whatanerd The flipside of that is that those who are most vulnerable to abuse, are often the least in a position to leave :/

@jacksonchen666 @marcan@treehouse.systems On the off-chance that this is a good-faith question, I'll point out one specific issue from which most of the practical issues derive:

E-mail based patches are based on convention, not on technical formats.

This means that to contribute, you have to learn and memorize a bunch of arcane conventions, and never get them wrong, or the tooling will get confused and good luck figuring out how to fix it.

It also means that eg. the review process cannot be as granular as something with a dedicated review UI; it's not possible to render an easily navigable 'review history' (see eg. Github PR review threads) unless every review comment includes a bunch of metadata.

And to include that bunch of metadata over e-mail, every user needs to learn more conventions, because e-mail clients are not built to do any of this, so there's no UI for it.

So either you have less metadata and can't render useful outputs, or you have more metadata and require people to memorize absurd amounts of conventions.

There is no good solution there.

We have dedicated UIs for things for a reason - they are more accessible because things have a clear purpose, and don't require constant memorization. How it works internally is a separate matter, but that UI *has* to be there to make it accessible.

(I'm not interested in further discussion on this topic; this should be enough of a pointer to think about other usability/accessibility issues that spring forth from this problem.)

@whatanerd It's extremely telling how *every* time some infiltrator is ousted, you hear like 10+ people going "yeah they were always acting shady, and I tried to point it out, but nobody wanted to listen"