I discovered this after upgrading our instance yesterday, which also upgraded all frontends to their latest versions as well. After I did, our Tesseract frontend stopped working and I noticed immediately as it's been my primary for a while. Initially I thought it was an API version mismatch, but no, it was much worse.
Someone pointed out that the developer of the frontend added an explicit hidden and unmodifiably blacklist which includes any and all instances to the left of Kissinger. There's a commit which also explains their specious reasoning about our instance specifically, as it seems we've been on their shit list for a bit longer than that.
This instance and its admin staff encourages identity politics, groupthink, mob mentality, and extremist solutions to societal problems. Users who advocate violence are not moderated so long as the admins agree with the target. Caution and critical thinking are advised when interacting with this instance or its users.
When you use tesseract to connect to one blacklisted such instance , you just get a message informing you that Tesseract is "incompatible with that instance" which leads one to think of a technical issue, like an API mismatch, rather than the dev being an opinionated coward.
Isn't it funny how all the software developed by turbolibs, like Piefed and Tesseract, end up with hidden control mechanisms from developers who think they know better than everyone else? That they don't just think they deserve to tell you what you should think, but they should manipulate you to think it? Isn't it funny how libs go on about how bad it is to support lemmy due to the ideology of the devs behind it, and yet lemmy has 0 opinions as a software? It does make one think...
Anyway, I forked - it as one does - and disabled the blacklist, but since this is a massively ideologically compromised software, I'll doubt I'll keep this frontend up after Lemmy 1.0. I think we'll bring up mlmym again now that someone's maintaining it again.
Piefed.social is run by an admin with similar views on censoring leftists as the Tesseract devs. There was a whole fiasco about it a few months back, where the lead Dev of Piefed kept lists of Leftists and other users they permabanned for pointing out issues with Piefed's code.
OP is on that list.
I’m glad you’re not getting downvoted for this. When I pointed this out, people yelled, “BUT YOU CAN DISABLE ALL THIS!”
What’s the point of defaults even being there if you can disable them?
Honestly it can be a coin flip, but I'm also banned from many of the instances that agree with Rimu thanks to the fiasco. That's also why I tend to not be downvoted so much anymore, they literally cannot see my comments from Piefed.social.
Can confirm. I believe I'm explicitly on their blocklist.
Same! Congrats on being a fellow hall-of-famer!
They also call you a harraser for pointing out actions the dev did?
I've been called every name and accused of every crime under the sun.
Thanks for the info!
No problem!
Censoring leftists? No, he censors anything to the right of left more than anything. Maybe he censors the faaaar left as well, but anything “conservative”, right wing, or centrist is censored.
Liberalism is right wing, and is allowed. Anything to the left of liberalism, from anarchism to socialism to communism, is censored. It's clear as day that Piefed is right-wing at the developer level. The fact that the far right is also censored does not make it left wing.
It’s right wing yet it censors every remotely right wing/conservative source?
It doesn't, though, outlets like BBC, the New York Times, etc. are allowed.
The New York Times is a left wing publication through and through, what are you talking about?
The BBC is centrist but left leaning. Definitely not right wing.
Which wars have the NYT's been against, again? Which policy of W's were they against again?
I agree with Cowbees definition, but the NYT's isn't left wing BY YOUR OWN DEFINITION of left wing.
Wars? W’s? wtf are you talking about lol
What is my definition and how isn’t NYT left going by it?
Given your lack of reading comprehension, I'm going to stop here.
The NYT is a tool used to sell the American (supposed) left on literally every war in the last 70 years. Including fun ones like Vietnam, and Iraq.
There is nothing left wing about that. It's not a hard concept. Try a little.
New York Times is precisely as left wing as liberalism. You've been raised to implicitly think of liberalism as the "normal amount of left", and that is not accurate. That's my assumption at any rate, because I was raised that way and carried around a similar misconception.
It’s not a misconception. It’s the way left and right wing works.
If everyone but you agrees on a definition, your definition is wrong. The democrat party is not right wing. Anti-right wing media are not right wing.
...in this case, you simply need to expand your definition of "everyone".
Roughly everyone in the US is conditioned to see our tiny slice of the political spectrum this way, as you're describing. Democrats left, Republicans right, the precise middle between them being...what? "Moderate"?
US politics sits within several broader contexts - it is not some magical thing with the power to redefine global and historical political thought. We simply grew up thinking it's mostly all there was and probably the ~best out of other worse sets of ideas.
And all of us suffer for that, you help us all suffer for that, by simply accepting (defending!) the self-defeating idea that Democrats are as far left as one should go. While Republicans just sprint further right, without penalty. And complicit orgs like the New York Times "report" like everything is mostly normal, instead of a goddamn historic, violent assertion of all the worst fucking things that basically NO ONE agrees with, going on today.
Okay. Democrats are left-wing. How?
I’m not in the US, so your entire diatribe goes out the window.
The left is moving further left than the right is moving right. Much further, much faster.
You are so wrong it's amazing. Sounds malicious, even deceitful, frankly. Think we're all done huh?
How are the right moving further right?
By dropping due process in a hundred ways, by openly murdering people they want to deport, by dismantling election safeguards, by destroying the Department of Education, by installing a fucking quack as the head of our health department and attacking vaccination, by the executive branch refusing to answer to the other branches of government in all the legal ways it is required to, by weakening protections against predatory financial schemes, by discarding truth and nakedly lying as a constant mode of operation, by dismantling the separation of church and state, by rolling back civil rights and Roe v Wade, by facilitating ever-greater mergers and monopolization, by demonizing and attacking protected 1A speech as "left wing terror", by SELLING FUCKING SCAM COINS FOR PRIVILEGED ACCESS TO THE WHITE HOUSE
Look, I am simply tired of typing - this is nowhere NEAR the list of evidence for the sharp slide right.
You are either so clueless you should never comment on American politics, or you're acting in bad faith. Either way, go fuck yourself.
By attacking and crippling fucking Sesame Street, AKA the entire LIBRARY of magnificent culture, available and permanently useful to the poorest folks, especially children, provided by PBS.
By literally violently capturing the head of state from another country that posed zero risks to the one that went aggro. By making it super fucking clear that the only goal there is imperialist extraction.
By reversing the obviously improving relations with Cuba, in a disgustingly violent way, by simply depriving the literal island of the resources required to uphold a functioning society.
By cutting off foreign aid like a fucking guillotine, with ZERO prep given for the sudden "guess you can just go die, then, we are done helping".
Ran outta words I felt like typing again, maybe I'll say more.
Both are right-wing. Both uphold capitalism, imperialism, and Zionist genocide. Leftism begins at socialism.
You can’t just redefine right and left wing like this lol.
I'm not redefining it. Historically, leftism has been used to describe those who wish to advance to the next mode of production historically, ie those who are progressive, while rightism is to conserve or turn the clock backwards. BBC and NYT are both on the side of dying capitalism, wishing to drag the moribund body of capitalism, while leftists would be the socialists and communists. In the French revolution, capitalism was left, because it represented a movement beyond the monarchy and into capitalism.
You guys don’t seem to understand where the center is. Just because communism is far, far left, it doesn’t mean “slightly left” is “right”.
No it is unfortunately you who does not understand what left right and centre means. The centre is those who hold up the status quo. The right are those who long for tradition and a return to the old. The left are those who strive for progress and the new. Liberals lie between upholding the status quo and wishing for a return to status quo of a few years ago when imperialism was less nakedly obvious. Liberals are thus centre-centre right.
Your definitions are just flat out wrong though lol. Right wing isn’t “those who long for tradition and a return to the old” lol. The left aren’t “striving for progress” lol.
You have literally no idea what these terms mean. That much is clear.
It's literally exactly what they mean.
LeftWing: Socialism Communism Anarchism Etc All trying to push society to progress beyond the now to new modes of production and organisation.
RightWing: Conservatism(liberalism) Nazism Libertarianism Feudalism Etc All trying to return to the mode of production and organisation from their imagined golden age.
The centre then if course is simply upholding the status quo of the current mode of production and organisation be that through inaction or actively.
You seem think left right and centre are concrete static labels floating above reality as opposed to what they are in reality which is a quick way to note the direction of an ideology in regards to the present.
The "center" is a pretty worthless intangible the moment parameters are defined beyond "left" and "right". It is interchangeably used as an arbitrary midpoint in policy and as a whole range of politics between, if not including, socialism and fascism.
Determining how 'far, far' right you need to go to calibrate for the 'far, far left' stretches and constrains where anything falls.
But let's be real, centrism itself relies on being able to switch sides in that 'slightly' range.
The distance left and right doesn’t have to be the same in each direction.
Which makes the center arbitrarily defined in the exact way I stated. Precisely.
You don't seem to get what makes something left vs. right. It's about what direction they take us, in the direction of the status quo, being right wing, or if they take us forwards to socialism, being left wing. In the future, socialism will be right wing, and communism will be left wing. That's just how it is, we must proceed forward exactly as much as we can without letting idealism cloud our judgement.
That’s complete BS mate lol
You're arguing with a communist and an authoritarian. Anything right of Stalin is considered right-wing.
Cowbee is deep in that camp. You will get nowhere with him.
Ah ok thanks for the heads up. Won’t waste my time.
What part, and how so?
All of it. Every part. Because it’s wrong.
Socialism will never be “right wing”. This is the problem with you full on leftists - you think moving further left makes everything to your right “right wing”, when all that has really happened is you’ve gone even further down the communist hell hole.
Why would socialism not be right wing in a communist society? If we advance to fully collectivized production and distribution, and a stateless, classess society, reintroducing class, the state, and decentralized production would be reactionary and take us backwards.
Left and right based political standing are not based on going in some perceived “forwards” or “backwards” direction. Communism is a giant leap backwards because it is a system that has been proven to not work every single time it has been done. It ends in an elite ruling class and extreme poverty and death for everyone else.
Being to the right of the far, far left doesn’t make something “right”.
Can you state how these terms, left and right, came into being and what they meant?
"Leftism" as a concept originated in the revolutionary side of the French Revolution. Leftism is inherently tied to forward progress. As for socialism (which you call communism), it has worked dramatically well every single time it has been established. It has resulted in removal of the former capitalist and landlord classes from power, and a dramatic uplifting in the lives of the working classes. Your assessment is utterly detached from actual historical evidence.
I didn’t call socialism communism. I called communism communism.
Which socialist or communist countries are there right now?
How did Stalin’s Soviet Union go?
Maoist China?
Cuba?
North Korea?
Venezuela?
Raging successes I assume?
Communism is a global, fully collectivized system of production and distribution devoid of classes, the state, and money. It's a post-socialist mode of production and distribution. You are referring to socialist countries that have been run by communist parties.
In any case, I'll answer in order.
The Soviet Union was a resounding success for the working classes, the reward for their triumph over capital being doubled life expectancies, tripled literacy rates to 99.9%, dramatic improvements to housing quality and a near eradication of homelessness, free and high quality education and healthcare, unprecedented equality of the sexes, and stable economic growth up until its dissolution. It was gradually undermined by reforms that split the socialist system against itself, a lesson other socialist states have learned from.
The PRC is the world's largest economy by PPP, the longest standing socialist country, and is continuing it's path to developing higher and higher levels of socialism. The populace recieved many similar benefits to those in the USSR, and unlike the USSR they are becoming the clear world power. Socialism is presenting itself as the only logical path forward thanks to their success.
Cuba is struggling. Though they have done a tremendous amount thanks to their socialist system, decades of brutal blockades and sabotage by the world's largest empire have left it woefully underdeveloped. Thanks to partnership with comrades in China, they are rapidly developing solar power, and therefore energy independence.
The DPRK is stronger than ever before. Thanks to their policy of nuclear deterrence, they have been able to peacefully develop their socialist system and gradually minimize the stark divide between the developed and underdeveloped portions of the region. Trade with Russia and China has resulted in an economic boom, brought upon by sanctions on Russia in the wake of the Russo-Ukrainian War.
Venezuela was never governed by a communist party. It never solidified socialism either. It's currently in retreat after the US Empire kidnapped their democratically elected president, and are recovering from economic terrorism by the US combined with the fallout from Earthquakes.
You didn't mention them, but Vietnam and Laos are doing well now as well.
🤣🤣🤣
China is not a socialist/communist country. It’s a mix of communism and capitalism. They’re super authoritarian and brutal though, so….yay?
You’re absolutely delusional. There’s not a well functioning country in the world that is socialist/communist.
Communism isn’t a global system btw.
China is a socialist country, the commanding heights of the economy are overwhelmingly publicly owned and the working classes control the state. The fact that they have some level of private capital in underdeveloped industry does not mean they are a "mix" of capitalism and communism, socialism is a transition between capitalism and communism and therefore has elements of each, while being principally socialist. I already explained fairly well the status of ML countries, they are doing fairly well right now, especially China.
As for communism not being a global system, what do you mean? Since Marx, communists have long understood that communism must be global. Everything preceding it but in transition towards that is socialism.
The very fact that China is a unique mix, including massive capitalism - ~60% of China’s GDP comes from the private sector, which also accounts for 80% of urban employment and 90% of new jobs -is a perfect example of socialism and communism not being viable on their own.
They need a capitalist platform holding the whole thing up for it to work, and even then their socialist/communist parts are the worst and most deplorable parts of the country - authoritarianism, mass censorship, capital punishment for even remotely criticising the government, child and slave labor, extreme poverty in the underclass with an elite ruling class, state sponsored propaganda that is demonstrably false but all means to challenge it banned/blocked. Then there’s the whole persecution of Uyghurs thing as well, but I’m sure you’ll pretend that’s not a thing right?
Your definitions of “doing well” for all the other countries I gave are crazy. Just absolute madness.