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. Iām 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?
So the period I initially noted.
Describing those instances as anarchist was your doing from two of your comments ago: āHexbear can indeed be very offputting to anarchists, especially those who learned from history that āleft unityā isnāt. Itās why slrpnk.net has outright blocked hexbear and they also managed to alienate all the admins of dbzer0. Likewise they get very little respect from anarchists in places like kolektiva.social.ā
Now youāre just being inconsistent.
You probably should, given the above examples. Naturalistic fallacies donāt justify top-down fiats on major decisions.
Did you miss me saying āthe wholeā just before that?
OMG you are really deliberately obtuse. Thereās anarchists on these instances but itās not just anarchists. Cheezus crust!
Sorry Iām too dumb, can please explain where I did a naturalistic fallacy?
Anyway, itās not a major decision to define what kind of instance one federates on init. I did as well when I defed lemmygrad and exploding heads. If done on start, people know what theyāre joining. Again, a vote is not needed on everything and not everything is a āmajor decisionā just because you claim it is.
No, I am just pointing out that I had already correctly described this initially and we have now come full circle. You entered this conversation with a sense of correcting what I had said.
I am not being obtuse, you are being inconsistent. When it suits your criticism of what I said, you call those instances anarchist. When I say it is funny an anarchist instance has such an undemocratic process, suddenly you say it is wrong to call them anarchist.
By arguing that existing practice justifies it as not going against basic anarchist principles. It is all very confused given the apparent superposition status of these instances as anarchist and not anarchist, of course.
It is, of course, a major decision. It is censorship.
Yes, that is true. If you establish bylaws of a collective first and then people join they consent to them, initially. But of course we arenāt talking about that at all.
Of course nobody said everything needs a vote. This is just very silly straw manning.
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.
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 doesnāt 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. Sure in a perfect world, everything would be done much more perfectly, but we do what we can with the time we have. If only you would request the same level of purity from the authoritarian regimes you supportā¦
How is that a naturalistic fallacy? Did I prescribe something as āgoodā or whatever because of weāre doing it already? No, I said that the current practice is consistent with anarchist principles. 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 āmajor decisionā that always requires voting.
Thatās exactly what weāre talking about! Just because we donāt do it in your approved manner doesnāt mean this isnāt exactly what we did.
āAnd not everything is a major decisionā, just ignore half of what I said, whydontcha.
What I said initially: āPerhaps they are thinking of the āanarchistsā that just watch YouTube videos to get angry at āthe tankiesā based on a misunderstanding of history in the 1920sā
I am of course not saying āthe only things are from the 1920sā, 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.
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 didnāt happen to say how they are reasonable isā¦ not relevant. In many ways you implicitly acknowledge how silly it is, because none of your examples are, āa couple admins just decide itā, instead you talk about affinity group subsets. Or is that meant to be euphemistic cover for āa couple adminsā?
Personally, I donāt think ātwo people make the important decisionsā is complaining about imperfection when it comes to an anarchist instance. Itās really just unexamined centralization that is otherwise an implicit part of the process of hosting software. And itās very funny.
The āpurityā is ābasic correspondence to the core principals of what you claim to beā. Iām 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?
A short version of the naturalistic fallacy is, āwhat is, is what should beā. That you justify what should be simply because it is how things are done. That is the logic you presented! āYou donāt vote on each ban your> admins and mods take either.ā
You did not say the latter, actually. But you did say that you donāt vote on each ban, as if this justifies the practice. It sounds kind of like these instances should!
No I donāt 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 āblockā button and all that.
Yes of course it is, at least if you want to say you are anarchist. Thatās a major decision and it is something that even āauthoritarianā instances can accomplish. I know that anarchists could do it even better!
No, it is not what we are talking about.
Itās funny because while I didnāt ignore that, because Iāve already directly said in no uncertain terms that I disagree 3-4 times, you ignored my response to what you said: itās a silly straw man.
And I said thereās plenty of other decades with āmisunderstandingsā?
And of fucking course the 20s and 30s are the primary focus because thatās the period with the last revolutionary potential which MLs squandered to build Capitalism again.
No, an affinity group is an affinity group a bunch of admins is something else, but can also be valid.
Thereās plenty of scenarios where anarchists take decisions without voting. Again, you donāt get to declare by fiat what is a āmajor decisionā. But Iām glad youāre self-amused at least.
Nonense.
Iām pretty certain youāre a Marxist-Leninist, so you (critically?) support the usual suspects of USSR and PRC. Probably also Cuba and if youāre extreme enough North Korea. Am I wrong?
Thatās not a naturalistic fallacy. Thatās me pointing out that this way of acting is obvious when you donāt decide by fiat why something is āmajor decisionā for others. Iām also pointing out potential hypocrisy.
No, I didnāt say that doing this justifies it. Thatās bad uncharitable reading on your part to claim a fallacy. Iāve actually done āvoting on every banā so Iām 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?
Do you know that for sure? Did you check when slrpnk defederated hexbear?
Again, why do you think you can declare by fiat what is a major decision?
It certainly is. Again, do you know when such instances were blocked comparative to the life of the acting instance?
Just because you disagree what is a āmajor decisionā for other groups of people you donāt belong to, doesnāt 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. Thatās the core anarchist principle you donāt seem to understand.
If you skip over what I say, you will end up making us go in circles. The next thing I wrote: āI am of course not saying āthe only things are from the 1920sā, 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.ā
Then acknowledge what I said before this and that you skipped over: āRight 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 didnāt happen to say how they are reasonable isā¦ not relevant. In many ways you implicitly acknowledge how silly it is, because none of your examples are, āa couple admins just decide itā, instead you talk about affinity group subsets.ā
Yes of course there are. This is not a real response to anything I have said. We have already long established that this is about making site-wide censorship decisions re: federation, not literally everything. That is just another implicit straw man.
I think, of course, that is it obvious that a site-wide censorship decision is an important one that it is very funny for an anarchist instance to decide via a couple admins.
I do get to say, by fiat, what I think is a major decision. And I think itās actually pretty obviously a major decision, which is why despite being 3-4 comments deep we still have to talk about things like āThereās plenty of scenarios where anarchists take decisions without votingā.
Yesnsense.
āI expect you to be able to explain this without my input, as you are so certain, right?ā
I do get to decide my opinions by āfiatā, lol. Got the thought police in here. Why are you copying my terminology to use it inappropriately for other situations?
But okay, I will accept that what you meant was that it was obvious. I will simply disagree (for the 5th time), because I think it is obvious that site-wide censorship is obviously a significant decision.
My point, which I will say was not obvious, when it comes to voting on every ban, was that it would be better to overcorrect in the opposite decision.
I have experience with both. Itās thankless, isnāt it?
slrpnk did not defederate from hexbear. It blocked hexbear without announcement, by fiat of its main admin. It confirmed this blocking/ādefedereationā in August last year. This was not something discussed nor presented, lol. Itās just one admin doing what they would like.
lmao there it is again.
A censorship decision is of course major, it is about who your instanceās users can interact with via your website. If your federated social media website is anything at all, it is about users and how they interact, what they post, etc.
And again, non-anarchist instances have done this. Itās very very very funny that anarchists ones donāt.
It is painfully obviously not. An admin quietly implementing a decision to block after the instance existed and then letting people know this is how it was last year is not in any way an anarchist collective where everyoneās just agreeing to those pre-existing bylaws by joining. It is just a website with an admin making the decision on their own.
Uh yeah?
I think this straw manning thing might be a habit.
Of course that is literally not the case here, is it? Or did slrpnk vote to block/defederate?
The core anarchist principle that nobody gets to judge who is anarchist unless they are a member of that particular anarchist group? I would love to see that core principle justified. Please show me your sources!
This discussion is getting tiring and fragmented and going nowhere. I will again reiterate that anarchist instances doesnāt mean that the admins always have the time to take the effort to sort them out in the most anarchistic way possible. Therefore some decisions will be taken as obvious and done directly to protect the instance members. Many anarchists will consider a tankie-haven like hexbear as valid an instance to block without further discussion as much as exploding-heads. This is obviously accepted given the lack of outcry by their members. Thereās plenty of ways to handle these decisions and your inability to consider them in favour of trying to goad me with it being āfunnyā just betrays either immaturity and complete inexperience modding large communities, or that youāre just trolling and Iām inclined to think of the latter.
The arguments you make in this thread and your insistence about the 20s betrays you as a Marxist-Leninist, but feel free to tell me Iām actually wrong and I would be surprised. Stranger things have happened. However as an ML, you have scant understanding of how anarchists work and therefore itās impossible to take seriously your moderation suggestions as coming from an anarchist perpective.
Given that I think you seem to just be trolling to amuse yourself, you are a waste of time to engage with as thereās nothing constructive to be gained by reading you try to goad and gotcha me endlessly.
Because it is mostly a series of straw men coming from you at this point and an aversion to replying to what I say instead.
And thereās another! āThe most anarchistic way possibleā. If only someone here had said that.
You are now telling stories instead of acknowledging it was one admin making a decision with no discussion or feedback, lmao. Just be direct and to the point if you donāt like things to meander or become tiring.
That is certainly true! But it does not make it less funny and absurd.
Goad you? I said it right off the bat as a one-off observation and it has snowballed because you are not being direct.
Or maybe I just think it is funny and at odds with anarchistic thought.
āI expect you to be able to explain this without my input, as you are so certain, right?ā
This is a topic that is entirely your deviation by the way.
I agree that this is a silly conversation, but this is because you leave a pile of inconsistencies and illogic and guesswork and evasion at my feet and say, āhere is my counterargumentā, and I have to say, āwow look at all this nonsenseā and then say exactly what is wrong with it. It is the opposite of trolling, I am trying to take you seriously. You arenāt making it easy.
Curious what that misunderstanding is. Do you feel the betrayal of the Anarchist Kronstadt sailors, Nestor Makhnoās black army, CNT of Spain, or the lengthy list of offenses against the IWW were just an oopsie?
It would take a huge amount of space to do those 4+ things justice. Iāll share in some of them but I think it would pretty quickly be something deserving its own thread or maybe just some reading recommendations.
Re: Kronstadt, calling that a betrayal is just incorrect. First, they launched a mutiny directed at the Bolsheviks (āno Bolsheviks in the Sovietsā, so the lines went), of course the Bolsheviks would act in opposition. It was a direct, oppositional fight, not getting stabbed in the back. In addition, part of the ābetrayalā narrative depends on characterizing the Kronstadt mutiny as emerging from those who had fought at Kronstadt for the October Revolution, as in, it was the people who fought and died alongside Bolsheviks for freedom who were later jailed and killed by them. But this is also largely inaccurate. The Kronstadt sailors mutinying drew heavily from new recruits from the south that had never been part of Kronstadt during the revolution, they were building their own structures (many of them questionable) using the principles they learned from the diverse ancom traditions in the south. I recommend reading contemporary accounts and items as close to the Soviet archives as possible.
Re: Makhnovschina, this one really requires reading heavily, to get a sense of the oppositional forces. It is, of course, much easier to justify a betrayal narrative here given the repeated alliances and breaking of alliances, the Red Terror, etc. These were people who fought side by side against the Whites, there is no doubt, and the Bolsheviks went to war against the Blacks and heavily oppressed them. My gut inclination was initially to say it was simply a mistake, a wrong. But if you delve more deeply into the specifics of operations, what the realities meant on the ground, it becomes clearer that this was not simply a revanchist attitude by the Bolsheviks, but a direct, material opposition due to the need to feed the workers in cities. This is why the Red Army faced no resistance in the cities and why the Black Armyās entire operation was deeply interlinked with the peasantry, namely a petty bourgeois peasantry premised on isolation and, oddly, frequent entitlement to the products of the city, which the Black Army often stole in order to support the peasant communes run by their mayors. Rather than bridge this divide, the Black Army greatly exacerbated it, worsening starvation conditions. And this was not limited in impact just to the region of Machnovschina, as it had long been an exporter of grain to the north. This did develop into a sectarian fight, though it was also not simply The Reds breaking alliances to attack The Blacks. As autonomous groups, subsets of The Blacks often declared agreements to be over sporadically and took up arms and killed of their own volition. So if we call it betrayal, I would say a qualified one.
Re: Spain I would ask you to be more specific.
Re: IWW that publication is a lengthy polemic about every perceived grievance they could muster, and mostly not about the IWW at all, including the inaccuracies about Kronstadt that were belabored without merit until the opening of the archives. I donāt know what you would want me to do with it except to suggest reading extensively and not relying on pamphlets. Every polemical claim requires investigation and specifics.