@maxleibman @shantini I respectfully disagree. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
Top-level
@maxleibman @shantini I respectfully disagree. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance 17 comments
@msbellows I don't know the OP's intent, but I hear it not just in the context of blocking Threads (fine, whatever, do or don’t; I don't like Meta, either). Rather, what I see reflected there is the complete asshattery of people who've said, “We need to block any instance that doesn't block Threads!” (or even further). Which is a burn-the-village-to-save-the-village sentiment if I've ever seen one. @maxleibman That last part's fair enough; my point is that openness need not extend to fully opening the gates to people who merely pretend to embrace openness as a ploy to destroy it (which is what I believe Meta intends to do). But you and I? We're good! Thanks for being thoughtful! @msbellows @maxleibman @Raccoon @msbellows @maxleibman @retrohondajunki @msbellows @maxleibman @Raccoon A good litmus test for this is if you would suspend a small instance where right-wing hate groups PragerU, Libs of TikTok, and Moms4Liberty are welcome. WelshPixie failed that test when she effectively said (paraphrasing), “We protect dot art users from harmful servers, except the large ones because reaching customers is more important.” @maxleibman @msbellows Hardly any people have actually said that, though. The anecdote just seems to be being used as a stick to beat people who advocate for blocking a party known to be harmful, and to derail discussion around that. @msbellows @maxleibman @shantini wow. I have been curious about this but haven’t been able to put it into words until reading this. Thanks! @msbellows @maxleibman @shantini I think the main argument against Threads is “embrace, extend, extinguish”? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend,_and_extinguish |
@msbellows Neither I nor the OP said anything about tolerating bad actors or bad behavior. I like what she said because it calls attention to Fediverse partisans’ obliviousness to the tradeoffs in the designs of this place—like how people talk about defederation like it's a clean, simple, pure solution, as though it has no negative consequences.
(EDIT: The first version of this reply started out unnecessarily aggressive, so I took it out, and I apologize. The rest I stand by.)