- cross-posted to:
- hackernews@lemmy.smeargle.fans
- cross-posted to:
- hackernews@lemmy.smeargle.fans
Even if you have encrypted your traffic with a VPN (or the Tor Network), advanced traffic analysis is a growing threat against your privacy. Therefore, we now introduce DAITA.
Through constant packet sizes, random background traffic and data pattern distortion we are taking the first step in our battle against sophisticated traffic analysis.
Should you though?
I get it, it’s annoying, but the entire “let’s block people with opinions I don’t like” is probably the single source of pillerization and increased extremism on the internet.
If I’m not allowed to have a discussion or disagreement with you, and get kicked out instead, I’ll just go to places where they will talk with me and where it’s chock full of other idiots like me who are much more extreme and in our safety bubble we can all continue not beat the same dead horse and circle jerk and make eachother more extreme because there are no dissenting voices, there are no voices or reason and calm, there are no cooler heads around.
This entire moderation where we simply started dumping people with who we disagree has made the world a.much, much worse place.
Granted, it sucks to have to deal with crazies and extremists, but at least whilst they’re in the group we can all keep them grounded in reality.
I actually tried to, and if it was possible to have rational and polite discussion, without straw man arguments, dog pilling, personal attacks and finally threats of violence, I would have continued to try. But sadly all of this happen, multiple times.
At some points I considered leaving Lemmy, thinking that this federation as a whole was not safe for debating. But then I started understanding patterns, either it was from the users from a specific instance, or it was communities from a specific instance that turned like that. Overall the pattern seem to be that if the instance mentions extreme political ideologies in its description or if the profiles of its admins do, then debating is not possible.
If they want to stay connected to people to avoid the circle jerk, they have to work on themselves too (ex: learning to debate politely), you can’t except us to absorb all the damages to help them avoid radicalization. It’s like walking towards a terrorist group with flowers while they are shooting around and expecting them to be inspired by your pacifism.
I do enjoy debating and questioning my own beliefs, but I am not on Lemmy to consume my mental health, so I need to take some actions to protect it.
Sorry, just to comment on this one: I really dislike that phrase, its use is part of the reason why we are where we are. You ARE safe, all the time. It’s not like you talking in a lemmy instance puts you at risk of being shot in the head.
You may encounter assholes, and opinions that you don’t like but that doesn’t make you unsafe. Uncomfortable, mayby, for having to read information you oppose?
A black man driving and stopped by US police can claim he feels not safe. We lemmies are perfectly fine. I think many people need to grow a little thicker skin in that regard.
I’m not on the internet or lemmy to make the world a better place, I’m on here to kill time/enjoy myself/learn some things. I dont have the mental space to deal extremists, and particularly extremists that have a world view thats incompatible with itself if taken at face value, and I certainly dont have anything valid that I can learn from tankies, and as such, my block list has gotten quite large, and my general mood has increased because of it
This is my thinking for using .world. I don’t get all my news or interaction from Lemmy or the internet as a whole, and Lemmy is small enough that it has an almost zero impact on broader society. I respect those who try, but if my internet experience was antagonistic or frustrating I’d probably just stop using it.
I also feel that conversations of that nature are best had in person, where there’s a higher chance of changing minds. I’ve no proof but it feels like internet discussions are taken less seriously and thus merely end before any opinion changing can occur.
You also have far less info on internet conversion on whether or not its being had in good faith, which is an extra hurdle on opinion change
I “blocked” hexbear, because a mod didn’t take the time to use their brain, labeled me a “pedophile apologist” and banned me from the entire instance. If they moderate based on “I don’t care what actually happened, I’m mad” then I’m not going to bother interacting with them.
Hexbear mods are paid to spread propaganda, not use their brain, two fairly exclusive activities.
I was planning to, but ultimately didn’t. I have handed out personal blocks to obvious trolls and a brunch of hexbear users that spammed gifs in every single thread though.
Not even grad? Wow.
Nope. I have filtered both grad and hexbear out of my feed though, I don’t need their shit there. And don’t forget that many instances already are defederated with them, so there’s also fewer of them through that!
This operates under the assumption that there are good decent people on every instance, but instances like Hexbear and Lemmy.ml are inherently corrupt and run by people who want to sow misinformation and chaos to negatively impact western powers. I’m not saying the whole thing is a Chinese operation, but if it were then it would be run exactly the same way it is now.
I don’t think your whole thought process differs from a tankie. They think the same in a “my team is better, other one is sowing misinformation” way.
Lmao, Tribalism is certainly a problem with our society, but ignorance of people clearly acting against your interests is no solution.
Yeah, I don’t block instances, just individuals that have proven to not act in good faith. I try to expose myself to as many diverse opinions as possible, but know if the people holding those opinions can back it up with facts, or are at least willing to consider the possibility that they’re wrong, and I try my best to do the same.
Problem I see with this is that a lot of “I block people who act in bad faith” have hair triggers when it comes to what they consider bad faith. I see their comments all over the place where its a disagreement and 6 comments in they’re claiming the other person is acting in bad faith and they’re blocking them
Yeah, that certainly happens.
I personally have only blocked like 2 users. It takes a lot for me to do it.
Being able to block what you want is great, having other people decide what to block for you is not.
blocked
I don’t think a lot of them are actually people, but rather LLMs. Also, does it count as “people with opinions” when it’s shills paid to spread authoritarian propaganda?
I do agree we should limit personal blocking, but that’s because we need to collectively manage the Fediverse. There’s no budget for countering misinformation campaigns, just us.
Instances blocking propaganda instances, on the other hand, is fantastic. It’s what we need for the Fediverse to survive instead of going the way of Voat and other extremist communities.
Because engaging in discussion with certain groups, does nothing but legitimize and amplify their messages of hatred and bigotry you fucking genius.
You don’t engage in polite discussion with people that want you dead, that want to seize power and implement fascist authoritarianism, and who want to purge the “impure”.
How you deal with it is by aggressively reacting to and putting down their bullshit, and denying them platforms which to spread their messages and hatred.
People like you, who want to wring your hands and play nice and polite with nazis and their ilk, are doing nothing but pushing their agenda for them. People like you are nothing but collaborators, and people like you will end up on the wrong side of the stick alongside everyone else once you’ve outlived your usefulness.
I eagerly await your reply of “oh well that just means you’re intolerant and that makes you worse than the (insert authoritarian flavor of choice) that i want to politely talk with!”
I didn’t vote on your post, but want to say that you’re not going to convince many people with an antagonistic approach.
Well thats a condemnation of yourself, then. Not of me.
Cause if you cant see what engagement, and by extention, legitimization of their points due to that engagement, has done by this point… Then honestly you’re either blind and ignorant, or one of their agents trying to open the door with a soft approach…and I will always be antagonistic to them. If you find offense to that, then you just reveal that you’re on the wrong side of that line.