this post was submitted on 17 Aug 2023
977 points (96.6% liked)

Meta (lemm.ee)

3595 readers
1 users here now

lemm.ee Meta

This is a community for discussion about this particular Lemmy instance.

News and updates about lemm.ee will be posted here, so if that's something that interests you, make sure to subscribe!


Rules:


If you're a Discord user, you can also join our Discord server: https://discord.gg/XM9nZwUn9K

Discord is only a back-up channel, !meta@lemm.ee will always be the main place for lemm.ee communications.


If you need help with anything, please post in !support instead.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Hey folks

I have been receiving a lot of messages every single day about federation with hexbear. Some of our users are vehemently against it, others are in full support. The conversation does not seem to be dying down, rather, the volume of messages I receive about it seems to be increasing, so I am opening this public space where we can openly discuss the topic.

I am going to write a wall of text about my own thoughts on the situation, I’m sorry, but no tl;dr this time, and I ask anybody participating in this thread to first read through this post before commenting.

Before I go any further, I want to be clear that for anybody who participates here, it is required to focus on the quality of your posts. That means:

  • Be kind to each other, even if you disagree
  • Use arguments rather than calling people names
  • Realize that this is a divisive topic, so your comments should be even more thoughtful than usual

With that out of the way, there are a few things I want to cover.

On defederation in general

First of all, I am a firm believer that defederation must be reserved only for cases where all other methods have failed. If defederation is used liberally, then a small group of malicious users can effectively completely shut down the federated network, by simply creating the type of drama between instances which would inevitably result in defederation. In my view, federation is the biggest strength of Lemmy compared to any centralized discussion forum, so naturally I think maintaining federation by default is an important goal in general.

I am also a believer in the value of deplatforming hateful content, but I think defederation is not the best way to do this. Banning individual users, banning communities and establishing a culture of mutual support between mods and admins of different instances should be the first line of defense against such content. There are some further steps that can be taken before defederation as well, but these are not really documented anywhere (in order to prevent circumvention). The point is: for myself, defederation is the absolute last resort, only to be used when it is completely clear that other methods are ineffective.

Finally, I am wary of creating a false expectation among lemm.ee users that lemm.ee admins endorse all users and communities and content on instances we are federated with. Here at lemm.ee, we use a blocklist for federation, which means our default apporach is to federate with all new instances. We do not have the resources (manpower, skills and knowledge) necessary to pass judgement on all instances which exist out there, as a result, users on lemm.ee are expected to curate their own content to quite a high degree. In addition to downvoting and/or reporting as necessary, individual lemm.ee users are also able to block specific users and communities, and the ability to block entire instances is coming very soon as well.

Having said all that, in a situation where all other methods do indeed fail, defederation is not out of the question. Making such a call is up to the discretion of lemm.ee admins, and doing it as a last resort is completely in line with our federation policy.

Regarding hexbear

Hexbear is an established Lemmy instance, focused on many flavors of leftism. They have quite a large userbase who are very active on Lemmy (often so active that they leave the impression brigading all popular Lemmy posts). One important thing to note is that while some forms of bigotry seem to be quite accepted by many hexbear users (but seemingly not by mods - more on that below), they at least are very protective of LGBT rights (and yes, I am quite certain that they are not just pretending to do this, as many users seem to believe). Additionally, while I have noticed quite high quality posts from hexbear users, there are also several users there who seem to really enjoy trolling and baiting (very reminiscent of 4chan-type “for the lulz” posting), and it’s important to note that this kind of posting is in general allowed on hexbear itself.

The reason this whole topic is important to so many people right now (despite hexbear being a relatively old instance), is that hexbear only recently enabled federation. A combination of their volume of posts, their strong convictions, the excitement about federation, and the aforementioned trolling has made them very visible to almost all Lemmy users, and this has sparked discussions about the value of federation with hexbear on a lot of Lemmy instances.

My own experience with hexbear

I want to write down my own experience with interacting with hexbear users, mods, and admins over the past few days. I believe this experience will highlight why I am hesitant to advocate for immediate full defederation from hexbear at this point in time, and am for now still more in favor of taking action on a more individual user basis. Please read and see how you feel about the situation afterwards.

Background

My first real contact with hexbear users was in the comments section of a post in this meta community requesting defederation from hexbear by @glimpythegoblin@lemm.ee. That post is now locked, because several hexbear users very quickly started doing the aforementioned “for the lulz” type spamming of meme images in the comments (these are actually just emojis, but they are rendered as full-size images on all instances other than the source instance, due to a current Lemmy bug).

I did not want to take further actions in that thread in general (for archival purposes), but I did take one action, which in retrospect was a mistake: I removed a comment which contained the hammer and sickle symbol. I ignorantly associated this symbolism with Kremlin propaganda, and the atrocities my own people suffered at the hands of the soviet union during the previous century. Many users (including hexbear users) correctly (and politely) pointed out to me in DMs that the symbol has a much broader use than just as the symbol of the USSR, and people elsewhere in the world may not associate it with the USSR at all. I am grateful for users who pointed this out to me without resorting to personal attacks.

Let me be clear here: while I do not have anything against leftism or communist ideas in general (in fact in today’s world, I think discussion of such ideas is quite necessary), Kremlin propaganda has no place on lemm.ee. Any dehumanizing talking points of the Kremlin on lemm.ee are treated as any other bigotry, and if communist symbolism is used in context of Kremlin propaganda (that is the context in which I have been exposed to it throughout my whole life), then it will still be removed. But there is no blanket ban on communist symbolism in general on lemm.ee, and discussing and advocating for leftist and communist topics (as distinct from the imperialist and dehumanizing policies of the Kremlin) is certainly allowed on lemm.ee.

Hexbear user response

Coming back to the events of the past few days: soon after my removal of the comment containing the symbol from the meta thread, two posts popped up on hexbear. One was focused on insulting and spreading lies about me personally. Another was focused on diminishing the horrors of the soviet occupation in my country. In the comments under both of these posts (and in a few other threads on hexbear), I noticed some seriously disturbing bigotry against my people. There were comments which reflected the anti-Estonian propaganda of the current Russian state, things like:

  • Suggesting that my people has no right to exist
  • Stating that my people (and other Baltic nations) are subhuman
  • Claiming that anybody critical of both nazi and soviet occupations is themselves a nazi and a holocaust denier

I expect to hear such statements from the Russian state - here in Estonia, we are subjected to this and other kinds of bigotry constantly from Russian media - but to see it spread openly in non-Russian channels is extremely disturbing. Such bigotry is completely against lemm.ee rules in general. Additionally, my identity is public information, because I feel it’s important for the integrity of lemm.ee that I don’t hide behind anonymity. Considering this, I’m sure you can understand why I am very worried about my own safety when people leave comments in many unrelated threads (where my original posts are not even visible), baselessly calling me a nazi and a holocaust denier.

Note that the goal of this post is not to start a new debate in the comments about the the repressions of the soviet union in Estonia or other occupied territories, but if the topic interests any users, I can recommend the 2006 documentary The Singing Revolution (imdb). The trailer is a bit cheesy, but the actual film contains lots of historical footage from the soviet occupation, and also many interviews with people who experienced it, who share stories which are deeply familiar to all Estonians. If anybody is interested in further discussion, then I suggest making a post about it in the Estonian community here: !eesti@lemm.ee.

Hexbear admin response

After the above events had played out, I reached out to hexbear admins for clarification on their moderation policies and how they handle such cases. I was actually very happy with their response:

  1. They immediately removed the personal attacks and dehumanizing comments containing Kremlin propaganda from Hexbear, and assured me that such content is always handled by mods
  2. They told me that while there are all kinds of leftists on hexbear, Russian disinformation is generally either refuted in comments or removed by mods
  3. They implemented some additional rules on hexbear to try and reduce the trolling experienced by many other instances, including ours: https://hexbear.net/post/352119
My personal take-aways

Let me play the devil’s advocate here and employ some “self-whataboutism”: among all users that have been banned on lemm.ee for bigotry, the majority were actually not users from other instances, and in fact people with lemm.ee accounts. If we judge any larger instance only by bigoted posts that some of its users make, then we might as well declare all instances as cesspools and close down Lemmy completely. I believe it’s far more useful to judge instances based on moderation in response to such content. Just as we remove bigoted content from lemm.ee, I have also witnessed bigoted content being removed from hexbear.

At the same time, I am aware of some internal conflict between hexbear users over the more strict moderation they are now starting to employ, and I am definitely keeping an eye on that situation and how admins handle it.

I am also still quite worried about the amount of distinct users on hexbear who have posted Kremlin propaganda. I so far don't have reason to believe that these users are employed by the Russian state, but the fact that they are spreading the same hateful content which can be seen on Russian television seems problematic to say the least, and it remains to be seen if moderators can truly keep up with such content.

Where thing stand right now

I am not convinced that we are currently at a point where the “last resort” of defederation is necessary. This is based on the presumption that our moderation workload at lemm.ee will not get out of hand just due to users from that particular instance. My current expectation is that as the excitement of federation calms down (and as new rules on hexbear go into effect), the currently relatively high volume of low effort trolling will be replaced by more thoughtful posts. If this is not the case then we will certainly need to re-evaluate things.

Additionally, nothing is changing about our own rules regarding bigotry. Especially relevant in the context of Kremlin propaganda, I want to say that dehumanizing anybody is not allowed on lemm.ee (hopefully I do not have to spell it out, but this of course includes Ukrainians, LGBT folks, and others that the Kremlin despises), and action will be taken against any users who do this, regardless of what instance they are posting from.

Finally, I am very interested to hear thoughts and responses from our own users. I am super grateful to anybody who actually took the time to read through this massive dump of my own thoughts, and I am very interested to get a proper understanding of how our users feel about what I’ve written here. Please share any thoughts in the comments.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] GarbageShoot@hexbear.net 39 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Most of those questions are full of tacit assumptions, but I'd like to answer the general question "Why do you commies dislike landlords so much?" You may restate any of those questions or present new ones if you feel them to be relevant in response.

You complain about people citing Marxist literature, so let's try citing the central figure of classical liberal economics, Adam Smith:

Wealth of Nations, Chpt 11 -- Excerpts

Rent, considered as the price paid for the use of land, is naturally the highest which the tenant can afford to pay in the actual circumstances of the land. In adjusting the terms of the lease, the landlord endeavours to leave him no greater share of the produce than what is sufficient to keep up the stock from which he furnishes the seed, pays the labour, and purchases and maintains the cattle and other instruments of husbandry, together with the ordinary profits of farming stock in the neighbourhood. This is evidently the smallest share with which the tenant can content himself without being a loser, and the landlord seldom means to leave him any more. Whatever part of the produce, or, what is the same thing, whatever part of its price is over and above this share, he naturally endeavours to reserve to himself as the rent of his land, which is evidently the highest the tenant can afford to pay in the actual circumstances of the land. Sometimes, indeed, the liberality, more frequently the ignorance, of the landlord, makes him accept of somewhat less than this portion; and sometimes too, though more rarely, the ignorance of the tenant makes him undertake to pay somewhat more, or to content himself with somewhat less than the ordinary profits of farming stock in the neighbourhood. This portion, however, may still be considered as the natural rent of land, or the rent for which it is naturally meant that land should for the most part be let.

The rent of land, it may be thought, is frequently no more than a reasonable profit or interest for the stock laid out by the landlord upon its improvement. This, no doubt, may be partly the case upon some occasions; for it can scarce ever be more than partly the case. The landlord demands a rent even for unimproved land, and the supposed interest or profit upon the expense of improvement is generally an addition to this original rent. Those improvements, besides, are not always made by the stock of the landlord, but sometimes by that of the tenant. When the lease comes to be renewed, however, the landlord commonly demands the same augmentation of rent as if they had been all made by his own.

. . . The rent of the land, therefore, considered as the price paid for the use of the land, is naturally a monopoly price. It is not at all proportioned to what the landlord may have laid out upon the improvement of the land, or to what he can afford to take; but to what the farmer can afford to give.

Obviously, Smith here is discussing a different type of landlord here, one who rents land for farming (etc.) rather than just habitation, but this contrast is largely to the detriment of the modern landlord as they leave it up to the geographic location of the rented property (i.e. availability of jobs within commuting distance) rather than have the possibility of issuing improvements to the farmland or otherwise assuring that rent can be paid by that individual.

The apologetics around landlords would have a chance if not for the basic fact that they operate on the principle of monopoly, as all of the land has been "accounted for," it is all publicly or privately owned, and there are extensive efforts to keep people from sleeping on public land. There's often no camping in a tent, there are specific "public awareness" campaigns encouraging private citizens to report those for destruction, and the settlements that remain are at any time liable to be cleared out by a police squad for the crime of existing. Sleeping on benches, when the benches aren't specifically designed to prevent this, is "loitering" or "trespassing" (many public sites are officially considered to be closed at night), and in any case is immensely dangerous even if one only considers things like precipitation. Landlords make their profit from the fact that renting land and buying land are the only possible options for someone who doesn't want to die of exposure or state violence. If there was land open for grabs and it wasn't being bought up by land sharks, there would be very few homeless because they could at least have little shacks on such land.

Without the power of monopoly, rent would be drastically less, in proportion to the actual maintenance and management labor performed by the owner (or their property manager). We communists have nothing against paying for maintenance or management, but merely owning a vital resource that is monopolized is not a job.

[–] IzyaKatzmann@hexbear.net 17 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Hey comrade, I'm on Memmy and the excerpt from Adam Smith won't render, might want to check that out. I'm guessing it's the one about landlords seeking wealth from land which they never toiled or something like that? There were a couple times he talked about the problems of landlords and rentier capitalism.

[–] GarbageShoot@hexbear.net 20 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I put it as a spoiler, so you should be able to see it by clicking on it, but anyway I took it from here:

https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/smith-adam/works/wealth-of-nations/book01/ch11.htm

Paragraphs 1, 2, and 5. There are probably better passages to talk about, but that one was usable and tbh I was being a bit lazy.

[–] IzyaKatzmann@hexbear.net 15 points 1 year ago

Ah thanks for the clarification.

No yeah it says literally after I click the spoiler "For some reason Memmy cannot render this" :/

[–] Firemyth@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Did you just miss that the entire argument rests on unimproved land? By definition a home is on improved land.

Besides I really don't care what smith or anyone else says- I'm not giving you the things I've paid for for free. If you want to use it- you can make an offer. But I'm not evil for not giving you something I worked for. You are for wanting it from me for free.

[–] GarbageShoot@hexbear.net 25 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Did you just miss that the entire argument rests on unimproved land? By definition a home is on improved land.

Smith accounts for both, but says rent is not based on improvement of land but on the highest level of rent the tenant can sustain. Improvement of land would be expected to raise that amount, but unimproved land would still have a cost all the same. It's not the main element, though I think it actually does bear some relevance to the issue of monopoly since one could rent unimproved land for the purpose of housing and get takers, as it would provide the "service" of protecting from a large part of police violence.

Besides I really don't care what smith or anyone else says- I'm not giving you the things I've paid for for free. If you want to use it- you can make an offer. But I'm not evil for not giving you something I worked for. You are for wanting it from me for free.

I have already emphatically said that I'm speaking on a systemic level because hyper-individualized solutions to systemic problems simply aren't useful, so bringing it back to personal incredulity and your land isn't useful. I have no problem with you being compensated for the labor that you put in or even the labor that you can plausibly say you managed, you're making many assumptions about my stance. The right to personally own the land itself, however, does not have so strong a basis in liberal philosophy (you can see Paine argue against this in many later works).

But really, pre-Covid the numbers were something like 600,000 homeless a night and 18,600,000 empty housing units. I don't care to moralize about landlords, I just don't want people to be homeless due to anything other than wanting to be homeless (which makes up a tiny minority, barring "itinerant" homeless who should also be sheltered). Maybe public funds buy your properties off of you, or maybe you are not directly affected because there are so many extra units that only a small proportion are relevant. I don't care, I just don't want people to die of exposure.

Naturally, if you don't have your properties bought off to start with, that will drastically undercut the amount of rent you can ask for for your properties simply because there will already be a supply for people who need it, making your service more of a luxury because it no longer has the force of monopoly behind it, but you are all for voluntary agreements, so that shouldn't represent a problem to you if people simply choose not to rent out your units and instead they sit empty, right?

[–] Firemyth@lemm.ee -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I do happen to have my properties bought off and I don't really care what the rent is as long as it's making a return that makes sense.

If your issue is with the system- great I agree the system isn't the best. If your issue is with people that happen to own a thing and rent it to people- get fucked.

[–] GarbageShoot@hexbear.net 23 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Marxists are strongly and explicitly anti-moralist, our concerns are for strategy rather than deciding who is good and who is bad. You can see my description of what could be called a personal set of incentives in the previous comment which make no reference to anyone's particular value or morality in general, simply a method of people getting along and subsisting. I want for people to be secure, not for punishment to be meted out for the sake of meting out punishment.

The symbol of the guillotine is -- in essence -- a threat to those who fight to preserve the old order. I think that society as has been observed typically runs better when people are compensated for socially useful labor, so there is no reason a petite bourgeois like yourself shouldn't be compensated for the actual labor you put in just like everyone else, and there's no reason that even an earnestly bourgeois person cannot be reformed. If you support the destruction of the system in which people lie in misery under the open sky due to poverty, then the threat does not apply to you.

You'll get other people who think differently -- in my experience this is mainly a subset of anarchists who moralize in a detrimental way -- but I disagree with them.

[–] Firemyth@lemm.ee -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Except in every other thread I'm also being thrown under the guillotine. So - you need to have an internal discussion so all of you are on the same page. You need to actually say what you mean rather than the buzzword salad you all spout. And most importantly you need to come up with a real solution rather than this hyper stupid and never gonna happen idea that people are going to just give away what they own.

[–] GarbageShoot@hexbear.net 22 points 1 year ago (1 children)

When you orient everything in terms of you personally imagining yourself being deprived vs those pesky homeless, that's gonna happen. Even as we were speaking I had to keep saying "I'm not talking about individualized responses, I'm not talking about you and I" etc. to try to wrangle the conversation into staying on the level of systemic issues. If you instead say "Do I still get to be paid for the physical and managerial labor I put in?" I think you will get warmer responses, but the other thing about it is that Hexbear isn't a monolith, it has a bunch of different ideologies, even though the one that I purport to offer some representation of -- Marxism-Leninism -- is the most prominent.

[–] Firemyth@lemm.ee -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

As I've repeatedly stated- my argument is an individual argument. Yours is a misplaced blanket that attacks me personally.

I don't have a problem with you guys wanting a system change. I have a problem with you guys not having a viable alternative and making personal attacks then getting upset when I object to said personal attack. You saying all landlords are evil is an Individual attack to which I take exception.

[–] GarbageShoot@hexbear.net 18 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm pretty sure that I already covered the anti-moralism of Marxism. I don't call you evil; I don't really call anyone evil. I don't think it's a useful term.

you guys not having a viable alternative

There are many countries -- mostly socialist but I think even the nordic states -- that have a far superior right to housing than the US. Most of us -- even the ones with whom I strongly disagree -- don't suggest anything in this respect except what has already been demonstrated for many years to work well.

[–] Firemyth@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Great- grand. wonderful. Make that argument then. Don't call for death, evil, redistribution of personal wealth/investments. Those are silly go nowhere arguments. I lived in Austria myself for a number of years. I've lived in a number of countries- I totally agree there are alternatives. It's the rabid frothing at the mouth blanket calls for violence and/or moralistic bs attacks on ALL LANDLORDS that I'm objecting to

[–] GarbageShoot@hexbear.net 14 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I think in general you would have a better time if you tried to help the people who are suffering and their allies rather than take the #NotAllLandlords route, just as you are probably better off being an ally to victimized women than to do #NotAllMen, etc. Whatever you might think of it, you're mainly serving as a useful idiot to the institution of land monopolization.

[–] Firemyth@lemm.ee -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm really not interested in your opinion on that.

I think you are a useful idiot for china/russia by buying and spreading useless divisive ideas. You'd be better served explaining how a system might be changed or pointing out systems that do work. I think calls for violence/moralistic bs that your community generally spouts only servs to induce hate on both sides.

[–] GarbageShoot@hexbear.net 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I still renounce and denounce moralism and have mentioned that there are other systems even in capitalist states work well, though the best that I can remember offhand is actually in Venezuela.

People talk about divisiveness, but class antagonism does the dividing for you. There is no escaping the fundamentally antagonistic nature of class relations except by the eventual destruction of class relations. Every time you hike rent, you breed animosity. Every time you evict someone, you make an enemy. It's not internet anarchists doing that. Either you can work to change the system or you can defend it along White Moderate-like lines of personal incredulity. I have no business saying which you have done or will do, but if everyone could just be friends, this problem would not exist.

[–] Firemyth@lemm.ee -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Great. I agree with that in principle. Though I'd not point at Venezuela as a great place to live personally. And as soon as I hike rent I suppose it would make an enemy. And the first time I have to evict someone I guess it would make them mad. I mean I haven't had that happen in over a decade but who knows what the future holds.

And as long as my tenants don't destroy my property and can make payments that will not happen. So yeah- friends all around.

Get that message out to the slobbering meme posters and the rest of your community/idealists and I'd honestly have no issue at all with you.

[–] GarbageShoot@hexbear.net 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Though I'd not point at Venezuela as a great place to live personally.

It's not the housing policy causing that, it's the sanctions and blockades. I could have said China, which has a policy that is worse but still vastly superior to the typical neolib country, but I think I'd just be setting myself up for an even more tangential response.

I literally do post about the moralism business. Do you want to be part of the problem by doing nothing and waiting until some sorry asshole like me personally makes sure than not even one in a million leftists will ever say something to hurt your feelings, or would you like to be part of the solution? Because just engaging with them without falling back on lolbertarian talking points would get you a lot farther with them than I could ever do for you.

[–] Firemyth@lemm.ee -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Do you really think you are part of the solution? As of yet I've seen no valid or real argument on how to actually make things better.

Just some ideas that have no way to be implemented and rely on humanity being "good" and "equal" which of course is never going to happen.

[–] GarbageShoot@hexbear.net 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Are you just never going to internalize the "anti-moralism" thing?

[–] super_mario_69@hexbear.net 2 points 1 year ago

I think it's time to throw in the towel, comrade. Extremely good posting, though.

[–] Firemyth@lemm.ee -1 points 1 year ago

I invite you to look at literally every other argument in these threads and come back to me. You alone sure- you've been decent. You I don't necessarily have an issue with.

[–] IzyaKatzmann@hexbear.net 16 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I won't argue, I will say that Adam Smith is a notable figure who predates Marx, Ricardo, Madison, Stuart Mill, Hayek and Friedman, etc. All of whom were important figures who have shaped our current economic system and form of liberalism.

Even if you don't care it's important to note the effect he's had as it largely effects you even to this day. Warren Buffet, notable capitalist, said one of his two favourite books was Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith. Think of it like the Bible of economics. It's where the phrase "invisible hand of the free market" comes from (wording might be off but I hope you get the idea!!)