Just a sense check here, are you asserting that Ada is a PTB for defederating from feddit.uk after their admins failed to take action?

Blajah Zone is specifically run as a safe space for trans folks, so it's an emphatic YDI to feddit.uk from me.

Given that the UK Supreme Court recently ruled that the legal definition of a woman in the UK is based on biological sex, and the supposedly Labour PM Starmer is running with it (wtf Starmer???), it's not surprising to me that TERFs and their supporters are coming out of the woodwork on feddit.uk.

Fuck TERFs and fuck Starmer for jumping on Trump's anti-DEI bandwagon just to pander to transphobic voters.

That's why I chose blahaj zone as my instance. It's nice not having to justify my existence

Good decision by Ada. I'm also quite pleased with how many instance mates stood up in here to defend blahaj's decision.

PS: It occurs to me we might need a name for our peeps. I.e. like one talks about "lemmings" or "redditors", we could use something for members of the divisions by zero. Edit

I feel like this community serves a great purpose. And I'm a massive fan of drinking my tea and reading all the drama it attracts. But I am just beyond tired of the same handful of commenters popping up to always agree with whoever is opposed to blahaj.

I give this one a YDI. Anybody posting anything transphobic who gets caught by Ada is gonna be banned. Any instance with a mod or admin who makes transphobic posts or comments will get defederated. No one is entitled to having their content served on Ada's servers, and the people who join blahaj know that, and seem to appreciate it.

Which is sort of why I always wind up agreeing with her. Her server has clear, concise beliefs, and clear, concise administration, and she has the clear-throated consent of her governed or they would leave.

The only server whose vibe I appreciate more is divide by zero. Shout-out to what I feel is the most neurospicy, nonconformist bunch of pirates I ever met.

How are people still struggling with the basic concept that the person who runs Blahaj can do what they want with Blahaj?

All I get from this type of moaning is: “I joined a decentralised platform and now disagree with decentralisation in action.”

If this kind of action is what it takes for Blahajists to protect their necks then this is how it’s gonna be…

terfs fuck off.

TDI (they deserved it) unless Feddit admins pop in with some extravagant response

Borderline YDI.

Reasoning for that is that the decision to defederate is one that is in line with the stated goals of blahaj. They have made it clear that they will defederate, ban, or otherwise use the available lemmy tool to allow blahaj to serve as a safe, sheltered place for people that are under siege by the world at large.

Ergo, this can't be a power trip as it isn't arbitrary, or outside of stated goals. Were I a blahaj admin, I would have taken similar steps to maintain the instance as intended, even though I tend to look on defederation as a last ditch tool in general. You can't maintain a truly safe space without aggressive defenses.

If blahaj was established as a general purpose instance, this would be power tripping. But it wasn't, and isn't a general instance. It's like beehaw was; they're using lemmy as the underpinning software, but the instance has a different goal than the typical ones. The federation status is one that's nice but not necessary for the instance to achieve its primary goal.

This is more equivalent to a forum blocking links to breitbart, only at a bigger scale; curation rather than control for control's sake.

However, I want to make it clear that .uk didn't do anything wrong as an instance. That's why it's "borderline" YDI. It's only YDI in the sense that the instance policy is incompatible with the instance goals of blahaj. The decision to aggressively moderate dog whistles is a difficult one, as dog whistles change over time, and are not always something every admin is going to hate resources to do.

Now, once you're aware of a dog whistle, you have a few choices. One is to hide your head in the sand and pretend it isn't anything at all. Another is to remove that specific occurrence, and do nothing else. You can delay a decision until you have time to verify that it is a dog whistle (you don't have to just accept someone's word that it is, no matter who is saying it). You can choose to not give a fuck. You can even agree with the dog whistle and directly support it. You'd be an asshole if you chose that option, but it is an option.

And there's in betweens of all those.

The .uk admin decided to refer to their standing policy and take no action. Since it is a standing policy, it isn't a direct support for the bigotry, only an expression of some factor that leads them to choose not to tale actions outside of instance policy. That factor may be something unpleasant, but that's not the same as being something like bigotry, or even apathy. We don't have anything at the time I'm writing this book from a .uk admin giving further insight. In other words, while I don't agree with their choice, they didn't do anything wrong either, unless there's some evidence of bigotry on their end. And no, just not agreeing to remove a single comment or post is not enough evidence to determine that.

From my end of things, though I won't go far into it because I don't believe in derailing the main goal of this community, dog whistles are so common now, and have been so effective that they get picked up by people that aren't expressly bigoted, they should be as aggressively monitored as possible. But nobody can keep up with all of them, even just one targeted branch of the practice. I try to keep track of the ones that are most relevant to my personal areas of militancy, and I keep running into new ones because the people creating them change them so frequently. But, when reported, they should be taken seriously, and after confirmation, be treated just the same as slurs and other hate speech. I also recognize that nobody is obligated to act before confirmation, and that it may not always be possible to confirm that a newish dogwhistle is one. It takes time for such knowledge to circulate.

fair for both sides, I don't see a PTB here.

Clearly not a power trip, just protecting their user space like they promised they will.

I've composed a little ditty for my barbershop quartet:

"Hell Yeah!"

I'm afraid it loses something in text.

Seems fair, I don't think this is PTB

It's totally reasonable for them to enforce their level of anti-bigotry protections to protect their safe space instance. It's not power tripping. Besides feddit.uk is full of full time labour centrist true believers and/or probable astroturfers and is is largely low value subreddit copy paste for their most substantial communities.

makes sense to me, that is what blahaj is for 😒 besides people that agree with that user don't want to interact with blahaj. And those that do could do it elsewhere

Ada‘s post contains no details or reasoning. Linking to the offending content would make this appear more deliberate.

The offending content was apparently this.

A woman is an adult female. A transwoman is an adult female who used to be male. It’s not difficult to grasp that they are different things. You can admit that and still believe that transwomen should be treated with dignity like anyone else.

Personally I don’t give a shit what bathroom people use or what they want to be referred to. I’ll go along with whatever… But a woman and a transwoman are different things, and it’s disingenuous to pretend otherwise. Always have been different things and always will be, no matter what the law states, now or in the future.

Kier’s words are still not transphobia. There is no fear, dislike, prejudice, discrimination, harassment, or violence in his statement. The scream of ‘transphobia’ is thrown around too much for anyone who disagrees with a narrow definition. Any disagreement is labelled as hate, and it’s silly.

Should a transwoman have the same rights and respect and opportunity as a woman (as per the legal definition)? Absolutely. Are they the same? No, they are not. Is that a hateful bigoted viewpoint worthy of scorn? I don’t believe so.

I don’t use the term cis. I use the term woman and you knew exactly what I meant. A blonde woman is a description of a woman’s hair colour and is a semantic-based response that is nothing to do with this point. You know this; it’s a foolish riposte that’s nothing at all to do with the clear and simple fact that a woman who used to be a man is not the same thing as a (cis) woman.

I can call it a woman who used to have a penis or a woman who used to be a man if you want me to be pedantic about it. Nothing to do with hair colour, or skin colour, or anything else except previously being a biological male and now identifying as a woman.

‘adult human female’ is not a dog whistle. It’s a legal and common-sense definition that you clearly understand but are trying to make out to be hate for some reason. I am not denying the legitimacy of transwomen; nor is Keir.

Transwomen and (cis) women are different things. And Transmen and (cis) men are different things. They have different names, which you yourself use for a reason. That reason being they are not the same thing. This is exactly the same as saying transwomen are not women, because they are not. They are transwomen.

It’s pretty simple.

Copied from here