eevee 🦊eevee
Sep 25, 2026, 12:09 AMWow. That person said the worst things you can even say. Really horrible, appalling stuff. It is my solemn duty to show it to everyone and then be rewarded for it
Replies
- eevee 🦊eeveeSep 25, 2026, 12:39 AM
tbh i'm getting kind of upset as it crystallizes for me that what people are arguing is that the person who posted nazi stuff shouldn't have been banned
the pinnacle of Poster brain is thinking that receipts are somehow a neutral artifact, that posting antisemitic drivel is cool and normal to do as long as you add an asterisk somewhere and vaguely sneer about it. but, here's the thing: you are still posting nazi stuff
and some people... don't want nazi stuff... in their space
"but—" no
- eevee 🦊eeveeSep 25, 2026, 12:44 AM
the absolute last straw for me on twitter was the realization that my timeline was constantly full of nasty terf stuff, because all the other trans people i followed kept posting fucking screenshots of it to say how bad it was
as if it's all fake, just points in a game with two sides, not words that might actually have an impact on anyone. feelings are weakness and we are forever trapped in the shadow of something awful
- eevee 🦊eeveeSep 25, 2026, 1:22 AM
maybe part of the disconnect is that i generally gauge people based on what they *do*, whereas it seems very common to gauge people based on who they *are* (or are perceived to be) — even among leftists, despite that i think of it as a pretty reactionary, maybe christian sort of impulse
hence, "it's obviously not okay for a nazi to post hate speech. but it's fine for me to post hate speech, because i'm not a nazi, so i don't mean it"
Þommythomasjwebb@mastodon.socialSep 25, 2026, 12:50 AM@eevee yeah “dunk” culture made me tired of Twitter well before Musk came along. Someone saying something evil isn’t automatically noteworthy and warranting of a debunk.
Video Game KingVideo_Game_King@mastodon.socialSep 25, 2026, 12:54 AM@thomasjwebb @eevee Same for me; just coming at it from the angle of, "Why ARE you doing this? What does it accomplish outside of bestowing an easy but false sense of self-empowerment?"
Sep 25, 2026, 12:56 AM@eevee@slime.global this is why purity politics drives me nuts. instead of not engaging you’re platforming the very voices that are harmful and signalling to everyone just how self righteous and virtuous you are. like, do us all a favour and link to a blog post you wrote about it instead so people can choose whether to engage with that violence or not. or spoiler it if the platform supports it and i’m not one who agrees entirely with the merits of content warnings as i tend to agree with an entomologist i saw who once said that nobody would learn to enjoy insects if we always spoilered them but fuck, this is different!
maloki 🍍:ghostbat:maloki@rage.loveSep 25, 2026, 1:00 AM@eevee this is the kind stuff i hate with people "making fun off" the bad side.
It effects so many people who see it negatively
Nick PooleNorth@chaos.socialSep 25, 2026, 1:25 AM@eevee Some of these folks will even say POSIWID without irony
Frejafreja@freja.zoneSep 25, 2026, 1:27 AM@eevee i assume their thought process is along the lines of "me posting this won't have the Effect that nazi hate speech has, since that Effect can only come from the Intention that the original poster had".
which just fully disregards the material effect of "someone sees the post → they are exposed to nazi hate speech"
Glyphglyph@mastodon.socialSep 25, 2026, 1:27 AM@eevee I have thought a lot about this in the past decade. there's a lot of validity to what you're saying, but I think there's a really important additional fact, which is perhaps the root cause of this perverse dynamic:
attempting to evaluate behavior on a case-by-case basis, particularly when evidentiary rules exclude "out of context" stuff, grants an asymmetric advantage to bad actors because they can pantomime good behavior in context while having obviously nefarious goals
- Glyphglyph@mastodon.socialSep 25, 2026, 1:30 AM
@eevee circa … maybe around 2010, I had a very strict "always evaluate only the behavior in evidence, in community spaces" approach to moderation decisions and I absolutely got my soul crushed by fascists repeatedly, intentionally attempting to grind down shared spaces by constantly line-stepping and rules-lawyering nonsense. gamergate, CoC debates, you name it, just constant bad-faith bullshit that was technically "within the rules"
- eevee 🦊eeveeSep 25, 2026, 1:42 AM
@glyph oh sure. but as you describe, the thing they were *doing* was still "constantly testing the rules", which imo is in itself extremely actionable. even if you want to exclude outside behavior, it's not like you forget everything they've already done *in the space*
- eevee 🦊eeveeSep 25, 2026, 1:43 AM
@glyph having a bunch of people call me a pedophile — an assertion that cannot be disproven and a lens through which a bunch of my actions were reinterpreted — has left me with something of a distaste for label-based moderation
- Glyphglyph@mastodon.socialSep 25, 2026, 1:54 AM
@eevee yeah, and even in less extreme cases, this type of approach presents some pretty terrible incentives. wreckers will start trying to label everyone they even mildly dislike. Read Some Theory jerks will label every moderate who doesn't have time to develop their own unique synthesis of Kropotkin and Marx as an enthusiastic genocidal fascist. arguments which SHOULD be about behavior instead center on ideology
- Glyphglyph@mastodon.socialSep 25, 2026, 2:02 AM
@eevee the problem with trying to penalize "constantly testing the rules" is that it is _very_ easy to muddy the waters and do a bunch of stuff that massively stresses everyone out and is kind of awful but is hard to overtly prove is a transgression. something like the Olivia Hill rule is probably the best way to break this logjam but socializing that requires a surprising amount of effort
- eevee 🦊eeveeSep 25, 2026, 2:14 AM
@glyph if you're massively stressing everyone out then you probably shouldn't be in the space!
- Glyphglyph@mastodon.socialSep 25, 2026, 2:19 AM
@eevee (cue a lengthy complaint about how that's just, like, your opinion, and doesn't everyone have the RIGHT to be in the space, it's not like I BROKE any RULES, etc etc etc. and yeah the immune system of the space needs to have a way to recognize this)
- eevee 🦊eeveeSep 25, 2026, 2:20 AM
@glyph rule zero: don't make me moderate you
JPdaedalus@eigenmagic.netSep 25, 2026, 2:35 AM- Glyphglyph@mastodon.socialSep 25, 2026, 2:35 AM
- JPdaedalus@eigenmagic.netSep 25, 2026, 2:45 AM
760ceb3b9c0ba4872cadf3ce35a7a494760ceb3b9c0ba4872cadf3ce35a7a4@wetdry.worldSep 25, 2026, 2:47 AM@glyph @daedalus @eevee re: open source, i was kind of surprised to learn that pro-"benevolent dictator for life" stuff is still being seriously espoused today. i just assumed that people had realized why Having A Guy does not solve the whole governance thing ( and may in fact be quite problematic!) and re moderation, like sure "dont make me moderate you"/"dont be a dick" is a good starting point but if "dont be a dick" was easy to derive for the purpose of determining what actionable steps to take on the scale of a community of hundreds or thousands , we wouldn't have any work to do, right? but clearly (gestures vaguely at everything) we do
SilverStar Ebonclawsilverstar@rawr.sillydragon.caSep 25, 2026, 3:37 AM@glyph @eevee Don't mind me, just adding my 2 cents here, ymmv:
As someone whose earlier days on the internet were full of both well-meaning, but also rule-lawyering, let me say this: The appropriate response is to say, "What you're doing is not appreciated. Rules are the runes to describe the spirit of the rule. Stop trying to test the rules or you will be removed." You address the behavior, not the incident, and you give a wide enough reason. That way, when it's just someone whose flavor of ND leaves them unable to process social cues correctly, you've given them framework for the behavior, rather than acting as point defense. And then if they violate, you remove them and dust your hands off.- Glyphglyph@mastodon.socialSep 25, 2026, 3:45 AM
@silverstar @eevee I am rarely the unilateral moderator in the unpleasant situations I have seen. Honestly rarely a moderator at all, usually in some kind of advisory capacity. the problem is not explaining to the problematic person, but the stress involved in getting a diverse moderation team on board with this type of orientation. I suspect it would be easier nowadays, but certainly in our collective resist-lib era it was challenging to explain this
bignosebignose@theblower.auSep 25, 2026, 2:47 AMThe name doesn't really help describe it, but this human tendency is known as the Fundamental Attribution Error
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error“[…] in which observers underemphasize situational and environmental factors for the behavior of an actor while overemphasizing dispositional or personality factors.
“In other words, observers tend to overattribute the behaviors of others to their personality (e.g., he is late because he's selfish) and underattribute them to the situation or context (e.g., he is late because he got stuck in traffic).”
Luna Lacteajackemled@furry.engineerSep 25, 2026, 1:37 AM@eevee I'm thankful there's not so much of that on fediverse, at least not that I can see since I'm strict with what I'm letting into my timeline. I barely saw anything about the KDE situation & I had to ask someone to send me links so I could read what was going on.
airakoseairakose@mastodon.gamedev.placeSep 25, 2026, 12:52 AM@eevee yeahh. I think the peeps who started a side argument and derailed the convo on that policy discussion thread both deserved the ban (the nazi more so fs, but that probs should've been handled outside of the thread)
I don't agree with peeps saying the person who posted the twitter links should be unbanned. Just bc they were right about the nazi doesn't mean they didn't also break community rules
At the same time, I also think the KDE account is dropping the ball on comms around everything
- airakoseairakose@mastodon.gamedev.placeSep 25, 2026, 12:52 AM
@eevee Justifying it as "doxxing" probs wasn't the right call (I also disagree with that framing), and elevating that one contributor's blog post about everything also wasnt great imo
But 💯, the person who got banned probably earned it - even considering that they were simultaneously correct about the other person. I just wouldnt have framed the reason as doxxing
- eevee 🦊eeveeSep 25, 2026, 12:54 AM
@airakose yeah it seems like that guy just did not understand what doxxing is — he edited his post
Sep 25, 2026, 1:19 AM@airakose @eevee Whoever currently handles PR definitely isn't doing them any favors, at least.
We're unfortunately well within the game of telephone where not many people are going to go back and dig into what's been said at this point, and instead rely on what others are saying (which is itself outdated info they probably got from someone else).
ShadSterlingShadSterling@mastodon.socialSep 25, 2026, 5:14 AM@airakose @eevee it really doesn’t help that this is the only thread I’ve seen that specifies that they don’t just post links but also quoted the Nazi rhetoric in them. When the description is that they “doxxed” them by posting twitter links that sounds like the ban was absurd, but when the description is they outed them as a Nazi by pasting a bunch of quotes of their Nazi rhetoric that really hits different
- ShadSterlingShadSterling@mastodon.socialSep 25, 2026, 5:16 AM
it/its kitten :blobcatnight: nyanpasu64@donotsta.reSep 25, 2026, 8:27 AM@eevee perhaps the post about Nazis could have been removed, and Luna told to place reports in private. I know that reporting Nazis (including while advocating in favor of disinformation tools) is necessary, and Luna should not have been banned (and I consider KDE to be collaborating in targeting Nazi targets, until they unban Luna).- eevee 🦊eeveeSep 25, 2026, 2:20 PM
@nyanpasu64 that is a completely ludicrous takeaway. even the other person who was banned wasn't "targeting" luna