I joined this instance because it doesn't block/ defederate. Everyone can pick what they want to see cutting it off is stupid.
this post was submitted on 05 Aug 2023
-3 points (33.3% liked)
sdfpubnix
1423 readers
1 users here now
Fans of SDF
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I too joined this community because it hasn't blocked nor been blocked by any other community on Lemmy.
I joined this instance because I wanted to learn, collaborate, and share tech- and art-related ideas in an environment not toxic like commercial social media that has been filled with bad actors. An environment more akin to the 1990s BBS systems where tech-misfits are free to be without being subjected to hate from those pushing anti-social philosophies.
Is that a policy of this instance?
It's a policy of the community. You really should read sdf.org faq. Best regards.
This is the closest thing I could find that was related, can you send me what you found?:
Any illegal activities which includes, but certainly isn't limited to spamming, portflooding, portscanning, unauthorised connections to remote hosts and any sort of scam can really not be tolerated here. Why? Because there are many here on this system that can suffer from this sort of abuse. If you want to use SDF, you really have to care about this system and the people here. If you don't want to care, then you really shouldn't use this resource.
I did read the FAQ before asking this, I did not take it to mean it's a policy of the server not to defederate.
https://sdf.org/?tutorials/social_network
SDF - The Ethical Social Network What 'Social Network' means to us (a history lesson)
....To the users of the SDF Public Access UNIX System, 'SDF Social' is based on the concepts and principles of the early Social Networks that we have always been a part of and not the highly commercialized, for-profit and ethically questionable Social Networks of the late 1990s and 2000s.
Simply put, SDF has always been about Collaboration, Non-Commercialism, Choice and Privacy.
Choice is very important here. Anyway best of luck in your endeavour whatever it is.
Also in the IRC section there's something about "Common sense" it's a great read. Just saying. Best regards.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Please don't! The whole reason I made an account here is because they don't defederate. I want to control what I read. If you have a problem with a certain instance or user, block them yourself! It's very easy.
I don't want to have to spin up a whole instance just for myself.
You said it better than I was going to. Keeping truthaboutjews.ru out of grandma's feed is one thing, but I feel like I'm savvy enough to read garbage responsibly. Maybe I'm being overconfident but there it is.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(13 replies)
I seriously doubt sdf.org will defederate due to political, religious or other kind of views unless some kind of danger to its users is involved, and even then I'm pretty sure we would go to ARPA votes over it. While the instance might be recent the community behind sdf.org is ancient (I say this with my utmost respect for them ) so yea, not their first rodeo or last one. If you don't like the views of those instances feel free to block them yourself. Best regards.
load more comments
(5 replies)
If I am reading the situation wrong, I apologize.
The reason that I am not a member at beehaw was because they were overly wrapped up in concerns such as this one. I'm here for enjoyable chats with people, not to take sides in the latest macro-politics or causes or whatever lately is stirring the pot or making the winds blow. These things are fine and some people are interested in them, but I'm turned off by the idea of an instance that is particularly identified one way or another when I am not concerned with any of that.
What I'm looking for are kind souls that share an interest in technology and an instance that was widely federated so that a wide variety of my interest groups (music, weightloss, networking, ancient Stoicism) are available. That's why I joined here. SDF has been around a long time and many who have enjoyed its offerings have held many different opinions and yet shared this resource peacefully.
I'm particularly turned off by people that want a silo with only the right causes, only the right thinking, only the right speech.
That doesn't mean we shouldn't have management and protection of against those that are unkindly trolling or actively trying to do technical damage. Ban those actually doing evil. But if people of good cheer share different views kindky as neighbors and friends, I have no problem with that and don't want to see that roped off.
Remember the two rules of FidoNet? "Don't be excessively annoying. Don't be easily annoyed." That's all I'm saying.
funchords, ha, we don't know each other but we've bumped into each other before on reddit long ago and I remember your name and that you were in a barbershop quartet. looks like you picked a good instance as home, be well man :)
Hello again! Yes, that's me. I'm still in a quartet! ♫ Thanks for saying hello!
ancient Stoicism
Is there modern stoicism? And if so, how is it different?
There is the English dictionary definition of stoic and stoicism with a small s character. There is also an ancient philosophy of Stoicism both ongoing and with a recent revival currently ongoing.
load more comments
(13 replies)
I'm not in favor of defederating over political preference at all. I don't come to this instance expecting an echo chamber, and an echo chamber is precisely what I do not want.
load more comments
(6 replies)
Imo deferderating should be a last resort. And so far I haven't seen any excessive cases of people coming over and breaking the rules of this instance.
Censoring for differences in political opinion is an obvious violation of freedom of speech. If you don't like them, censor them for yourself. Why are you advocating what others should or shouldn't hear?
load more comments
(5 replies)
I would suggest just not subscribing to any communities on that site. Let's not turn everything into a defederate ~~war~~ debate.
load more comments
(1 replies)
view more: next ›