"Antiwoke" magazin on kbin.social posting bullshit like "how to end Wokeness" and "Time to reject the extrem trans lobby harming our society" How to report ? he is the moderator of that magazin.

Bobo_Palermo, 10 months ago

Simply don't go to that magazine? Fuck, people....censorship is bad, but it sounds like kbin is committed to it. Is there a community I can join that has full free speech? This is a serious question.

szczur, 10 months ago

They don't exist, because everytime someone mistakes hate speech for free speech it turns the community into a giant cesspool.

gonzo0815, 10 months ago

4chan

knatsch, 10 months ago

If you want to have a tolerant community you need to filter those out who are intolerant to others.

Zagorath, 10 months ago

It’s the paradox of tolerance. If you tolerate intolerant views in a space, quickly only the intolerant will feel welcome in a space. The series of now-removed Tweets screenshotted in this article do a great job of illustrating the point.

sombrero, 10 months ago

Complete freedom is called anarchy.

MonsieurHedge, 10 months ago

The mostly "reduced" posts in this thread open up a good time to discuss the benefits of federation in regards to removing problem users. Can we federate banlists, such that if, for example, you're banned from kbin.social for creating a community for hate speech, it also bans you from likeminded instances automatically?

Would be nice to form "zine alliances" to share the burden a little bit. Anyone who posts "end wokeness" stuff doesn't need to exist on any platform.

blazera, 10 months ago

how did you even find it? Browsing by newest?

LollerCorleone, 10 months ago

Its nice to see all the bigots popping up in one place. Makes it easier to block them. And we really need to get some instance level mods.

reitoei, 10 months ago

I'm tired of all this Left/Right fucking bullshit. Fuck you all. I don't give a shit.

People on the Right: THIS is how you radicalise people against you.
People on the Left: You, too. This is how you radicalise people against you.

AND NO "YEAH BUT ACKSHULLY" Foot stamping keyboard warrior escapades.

Fuck off back to fucking Lemmy or Reddit or Gab or Poal or wherever you fucking mouthbreathers circlejerk.

szczur, 10 months ago

Oh boy, an enlightened centrist!

If you cannot differentiate between people actively stepping up to a literal anti-human propaganda from people posting it, perhaps you should fuck off, too.

hydro033, 10 months ago

Oh boy, here we go with the enlightened centrists label. Disagree with somethings on the left and right and now you're also a huge problem. Bravo

szczur, 10 months ago

You are, because the guy we are talking about literally chose the appeasement rhetoric. And that's pretty enlightement centrist-y.

Both sides are equally bad bullshit.

ondoyant, 10 months ago

get fucked. politics shapes our lives, if you hate it so much don’t use the fucking internet.

Borgzilla, 10 months ago

As a non-american, I find americans to be very intense when it comes to politics. I just hope that we don’t start importing their culture war bullshit into our country.

Izzgo, 10 months ago

Now I can confirm, the block button works :D

realcaseyrollins, 10 months ago

If you don't like it, don't read it.

ArugulaZ, 10 months ago

The frothing hysteria over "wokeness" (ie treating your fellow humans with respect) is just a smokescreen by the oil industry, which hopes it will take some pressure off it for, you know, slowly killing us all with global warming. You do know this, don't you?

I went through a young Republican phase, too. Then I realized that the party had nothing to offer ordinary people but contempt and cynical manipulation. Like telling people that they can be good Christians by doing the exact opposite of what Christ did. Like pitting Americans against each other for their differences. Like convincing people that the former president, a monster by any objective standard, is this country's savior when it's clear that he's just shaking the nation for loose change.

It's called "wokeness" because we finally opened our eyes, saw what was happening all around us, and decided to do something about it. You can either recognize the evil in this world, or become another oblivious victim of it.

unsophisticated, 10 months ago

This is a literal conspiracy theory.

10A, 10 months ago

And quite a creative one at that.

bane_killgrind, 10 months ago

It's not really. There is millions visibly spent on lobbying efforts against climate change, and invisibly stockholders invested in energy are board members of media companies. For example Jack Cockwell has over a billion dollars in Brookfield hedge fund, and that fund has been increasing it's holdings in energy for the last decade. There's some BCE board member that has millions of dollars in Wajax stocks (industrial equipment manufacturer), about half his net worth.
If you talk about industries with influence on one another from the perspective of ownership, you'll find it's all very incestuous as the richest people will diversify.
Weirdly, the people involved in Fox News only seem to own stock in FOX, but cash contributions to those people aren't shown in the market data I'm looking at. Maybe I'm not looking in the right places, but I'm not a finance person.

ArugulaZ, 10 months ago

Every downvote is a sweet, sweet tear trickling down from the chubby cheek of an incel sociopath who was pre-emptively blocked. Delicious! Your agony sustains me!

ernest, 10 months ago

I just need a little more time. There will likely be a technical break announced tomorrow or the day after tomorrow. Along with the migration to new servers, we will be introducing new moderation tools that I am currently working on and testing (I had it planned for a bit later in my roadmap). Then, I will address your reports and handle them very seriously. I try my best to delete sensitive content, but with the current workload and ongoing relocation, it takes a lot of time. I am being extra cautious now. The regulations are quite general, and I would like to refine them together with you and do everything properly. For now, please make use of the option to block the magazine/author.

Noki, 10 months ago

thank you!

I appreciate all you do and your quick respond.

Multipile Things I noticed as a creater of this thread:
can I close comments ?
can I hide comments ?
can I pin a response?
can I quickly see from what server peope are interacting?

I am no coder but would love to support you with all the work that is done.

At least some of the costs can be taken of your shoulders:

https://www.buymeacoffee.com/kbin

Edit: Can you close this thread for me ?

ernest, 10 months ago

All the things you mentioned are in the roadmap. However, we can either do it quickly and potentially encounter issues in a few weeks or months, or take a bit more time for a more thorough approach. I've decided to move away from playful prototyping. From now on, every change will be tested before it's approved for kbin.social - it's no longer just my code (https://lab2.kbin.pub/). I'd like to close this thread for you... but can we just agree not to respond in it anymore? ;p

Hobovision, 10 months ago

I don't think closing threads is a great idea or in keeping with how this all works. I think it'd be nice to be able to mute a thread as an individual, but by its nature these discussions are open and shared with many instances. If we close it on kbin.social, other kbin instances, lemmy instances, and even places like mastodon and pixelfed could keep discussing, if I understand activity pub correctly.

ernest, 10 months ago

In such important tasks, I would like to engage in community-driven development. When I start planning these tasks, I will come to you with my whiteboard and sketch out the individual stages. Together, we will look for the advantages and disadvantages of such a solution, the weak and strong points. This is to jointly make a decision on whether the change makes sense on kbin.social but also in the perspective of the entire federation. It can be a great fun ;)

Snapz, 10 months ago

Let’s all agree that of its many issues, locking/deleting open threats to targeted minority groups and pro supremacist propaganda meant to hurt or influence vulnerable people was NOT a drawback of the Reddit experience.

Yes, it’s a difficult thing to enforce a subjective line of a basic standard of decency, but it’s also what a society is and one of the main reasons we gather as people. The quality of a group is shown in how they accommodate the weakest and most vulnerable among them.

If we aren’t prioritizing a way to send this CHUD and people liked them to the hypothetical edge of town, to be sure they can’t bombard the young person struggling with their gender identity with targeted hate at their weakest moment, then what are we doing here?

bane_killgrind, 10 months ago

Thank you for being thorough

Infiltrated_ad8271, 10 months ago

Could you clarify what you would do in cases like this? Censor based on misinterpretation of the clickbait headline, even if it does not contain hate content at all?

TheDudeAbiding, 10 months ago

That's the best bait you could come up with? Come on, you can do better.

LoafyLemon, 10 months ago

A friendly reminder; Please don't forget to take your time and step away from Kbin whenever you need a break. Your mental health is just as important, if not most important, for the project to succeed.

albinanigans, 10 months ago

You are correct.

I'm bookmarking this page to return to later. Time to pull up some weeds!

slicedcheesegremlin, 10 months ago

Everyone appreciates your effort here, ernest. Spez hasn't gotten 92 upvotes on a comment in years lmao despite Reddit having millions of users, it really shows how the difference.

KTVX94, 10 months ago

I joined kbin recently and I'm kind of concerned about the implications of this. I don't support those posts at all, but who gets to say what's worth banning and what not? Wouldn't that go against the decentralized nature of the site? Or is it the specific instance that magazine is on that has the authority to ban what's inside? How does all of this work?

Edit: my bad, I got kbin and kbin.social mixed up. Noob mistake.

Kierunkowy74, 10 months ago

kbin.social administration controls only what is published on kbin.social, and what content from elsewhere kbin.social users can see. An user banned from kbin.social can make another account, on another site and start recreate there his banned community. kbin.social will be able to ban this remote user and remote community, but this restricts only what kbin.social users can see.

Exactly the same for another /kbin or lemmy site - just replace the domain name accordingly.

updawg, 10 months ago

It actually is one of the strengths of the decentralized nature of the Fediverse. But there are still growing pains associated with it.

lazy, 10 months ago

@KTVX94

While I kind of agree with you in being concerned about who gets to control what we see and don't see and the censorship aspect, there is also "the paradox of tolerance" to be considered and maybe in that light it is correct to not tolerate that subs intolerance.

Regarding the Paradox of Tolerance:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

MrMonkey, 10 months ago

The Paradox of Tolerance is hot garbage:

lemm.ee/comment/481170

harmonea, 10 months ago

Wouldn't that go against the decentralized nature of the site?

No, it's exactly the opposite. The entire point of a decentralized federation is that while yes, the admin is in complete control of what content is allowed on his or her own instance, users who don't like what the admin is doing can just spin up their own new instances.

Ernest can ban this type of content if he likes. Others can take the kbin software and make a new instance where it's welcome. Ernest can choose not to federate with that instance if they continue to push content that's against his rules, but Ernest doesn't have the power to dictate the direction for hundreds of millions of users' experience like a certain centralized site's mad CEO or admin board does.

What would be against the nature of ActivityPub is if Ernest built something into the software to prevent it being used for types of content he doesn't like, even on other instances.

livus, 10 months ago

Remember, kbin.social is just one instance of kbin. Ernest banning something on kbin.social does not mean banning it from the fediverse.

It could pop up on another fediverse site or even another kbin site.

cacheson, 10 months ago

The regulations are quite general, and I would like to refine them together with you and do everything properly.

I have been wondering how instance-wide moderation will end up looking on kbin, once you've had a chance to get a team in place for that. While it is (I assume) a "generalist" instance, it's important to keep in mind that you can't please everyone. Trying to have too broad of an audience will just result in retaining those with a high tolerance for toxicity (usually highly toxic themselves), while everyone else leaves in favor of better-managed spaces.

Communities in general, and particularly on the internet, need to understand what their purpose is, and be proactive about filtering out those that are incompatible with that purpose. This doesn't mean judging those people as wrong, or "bad people", it just means recognizing that not everyone is going to get along, and that some level of group cohesion needs to be maintained.

atypicaloddity, 10 months ago

Agreed, that's part of my problem with generalist instances. They're so broad that they serve multiple communities with differing expectations, and it forces admins to take sides.

cacheson, 10 months ago

I think there is value in having both generalist and specialized instances, and the big landing spots for new users should probably strive to be more generalist. As you point out though, there are limits to how broad of an audience one can practically cater to.

spicy_biscuits, 10 months ago

Thank you Ernest, we appreciate you ☺️

HidingCat, 10 months ago

Wow, more new servers! Looks like the growth has been really explosive. It wasn't that long ago you migrated Kbin to Fastly right?

hydro033, 10 months ago

I don't know what is going on with this new magazine, but are you suggesting that we can't be critical of "woke" culture and/or aspects of trans culture? I think both have some excesses deserving of some criticism, e.g. witch hunts on social media and transwomen in women's sports.

Edit: Unbelievable downvotes over a completely reasonable take. Perhaps there is no hope for the internet after all.

PenguinJuice, 10 months ago

It is really disgusting and probably the worst part of any movement, everyone is brain washed into believing only one narrative and dissent is silenced. It's pretty much just fascism.

fosho, 10 months ago

you think a movement of tolerance for trans folks is brainwashing? i’m pretty sure it’s society evolving to accept that people exist outside the box of binary genders and other folks deciding they have no problem with that.

you’re trying to tell people that what they know themselves to be is wrong. you’re out here lacking empathy - making no attempt to really try to understand what life is like for people like this. and ultimately you’re making a fuss about something that bears no tangible outcome on your daily life.

we don’t want to have this conversation anymore. it has been done to death. we understand your perspective and it’s based on fear of the unknown. end of discussion.

AnonTwo, 10 months ago

You're being downvoted for making a reasonable take, to a completely unreasonable set of posts.

The problem is basically people going "let them talk banning is free speech!" When the talk is either an article demonizing the trans lobby, or a post below it that takes a moment to talk about how back in the day it was acceptable to beat homosexual people to a pulp.

That is why you are being downvoted. Because you're trying to act like a reasonable response is to be expected to a set of unreasonable and destructive takes. There's a group here trying to normalize hate speech as something that can just be argued with when most of them are cherry picking their arguments or just arguing in bad faith in general.

Aesthesiaphilia, 10 months ago

I'm sorry for the downvotes. People are assuming you support what's being said on that magazine, when you explicitly said you didn't read it. It's pretty vile stuff, not just reasonable criticisms. The place needs to be banned, it's very clearly hate speech.

Borgzilla, 10 months ago

I see it as an opportunity to see how resilient the Fediverse is against censorship. Each instance has its own rules, and can federate (or not) with whoever they want. You want to build a stormfront clone or an extreme-left community? Go ahead, make your own rules. It does not mean that my instance has to federate with yours, though.

Sorry about the grammatical mistakes. English is not my native language.

PenguinJuice, 10 months ago

People are allowed to have a difference of opinion. You don't get to silence people just because you disagree with them. Please do not go down that dark path.

Believe it or not there are people who do not subscribe to certain views, bur that does not make them "hate mongerers" anymore than the extreme opposition. It's only extremists and people who try to silence others for their views that are assholes. You live in a great big world full of a lot of differing opinions and that's what makes it beautiful. Silencing opinions because of your personal beliefs is not acceptable.

OKbinBuddyChicanery, 10 months ago

Transphobia, racism, etc aren't an opinion. They are hate speech. Full stop.

I am absolutely against silencing opinions. I am also absolutely in favor of silencing hate speech. Understand the difference.

hydro033, 10 months ago

What about when it's more nuanced like "I support trans people to do whatever they want, but I don't support transwomen in women's sports." Or "I am cautious about transitioning young children until we have a better medical understanding of gender dysphoria." Seems like many here would still consider my perspective to be "hate speech," which I, of course, find ridiculous.

effingjoe, 10 months ago

When you're discussing traits inherent to a person-- not things they do or believe, but things they are, it's almost certainly hate speech. A quick test would be to swap the inherent thing you're talking about with skin color, since that one seems obvious to most people. So, would you say that an opinion that you support people of color, you just don't support them playing sports with people that aren't POC, be nuanced opinion or hate speech?

As for your second hypothetical, that is a discussion for doctors and experts, and they've already had it, and that's why children can't get non-reversible procedures until they're 18. No one is transitioning children; they are blocking their development so they can have a choice on how to proceed when they're adults.

hydro033, 10 months ago

False equivalence. XY humans destroy XX humans in sports, it's why we have men's and women's divisions - women are a protected class. Allowing XY individuals in women's sports is not fair to women, and undermines the entire purpose of sport and a women's division. Look at it this way : men's division is really an open division, but we created a women's division for the purpose of fairness.

Second point, let's just say you don't know how much I know about this topic or these issues. The question of reversibility by using hormone blockers is still being debated. We simply do not have enough data to know if its safe. You cannot treat hormone manipulation as some simple process. There are many feedback loops involved in the HPG axes.

AmidFuror, 10 months ago

Your logic means men (not trans women) should be able to compete in women's sports.

fosho, 10 months ago

regarding the sports issue, i can understand the argument that this situation could be abused for an unfair advantage. and eventually it most likely would be by someone. however i don’t have any good solutions that aren’t shitty. even an absolutely sincere trans person could still have an unfair advantage but i would never advocate discrimination by banning them from competing. either option is unfair to someone. it’s a tough issue and one that has no easy answers.

hydro033, 10 months ago

Agreed - I think relabeling divisions as open and women (XX) divisions is the best solution. Other solutions I have heard include only regulating things at high levels of play, e.g., championships and other events that have prestigious awards. Joanna Harper has advocated the latter.

fosho, 10 months ago

hmm - i like the idea of removing gender from divisions and instead using another criteria that better defines an individual’s ability. that way when a trans woman goes to compete they aren’t specifically put into a category for men but rather a group of people who have relatively comparable abilities. sortof like weight classes. i mean - it’s still kinda shitty because now someone has to decide based on difficult criteria who belongs where, but i think that’s a step in the right direction. i’m would hope that for trans folks, the idea that they are put into a gendered category is what is the most discriminatory rather than a skill/ability category. however, the end result would likely be the same just with different labels. maybe that’s what matters most? i don’t know. no easy answers.

CynAq, 10 months ago

That's not nuance, that's just ignorance and a knee-jerk reaction to a very complicated issue which has to be left to experts, who, in addition to being normal people with compassion and love like most of us towards their fellow humans, know the most about their topic of expertise than any of us.

hydro033, 10 months ago

It is indeed nuance. Just because you're not well read or educated on the topic, doesn't mean I am not. I have been thinking about these things for years and years, and I do indeed have a formal education in biology. So, no, not a knee-jerk reaction, sorry. Again, I am all for letting trans individuals transition and exist how they want, and I am all for respecting pronoun usage, and whatever else - that is compassion towards fellow humans. I am just pointing out two aspects of this debate where I have my own thoughts that have some slight pushback on progressive perspectives.

CynAq, 10 months ago

If you were as "well read" as you think you are, you would know how much bullshit you're spewing right now. Especially about children getting the gender affirming care they need without any need interference from "well-mean" idiots like you.

Your "concern" is potentially killing young people, and you're here talking out of your ass, convinced you have compassion for people.

Aesthesiaphilia, 10 months ago

Nuanced opinions are worthy of discussion. That's not what I've seen on the community in question.

PenguinJuice, 10 months ago

Racism is disgusting but transpobia? I don't believe that's hate speech. People can not like something but not wish death on the person or outright hate who they are as a person. People are allowed to dislike certain behaviors. It's not comparable to racism and its definitely not hate speech.

AnonTwo, 10 months ago

but transpobia? I don't believe that's hate speech.

Uhhh...no, that is hate speech. It's in definition damnit.

I'm going down this thread and holy crap did you 180 from normal conversation into downright bigot.

szczur, 10 months ago

But you do not disagree with someone doing or believing something. By defending transphobia you disagree with someone being one thing or the other. Because transphobia isn't based on disagreeing with what trans people are doing or believe in. It disagrees with their fundamental right to exist and wants to take it away. It's no different from racism or antisemitism.

That's the difference you seem to miss.

10A, 10 months ago

Just as there is no "gay gene", there is no "transgender gene".

Aesthesiaphilia, 10 months ago

No "straight" gene either

10A, 10 months ago

That's true, and it's a good point. All of our behavior is rooted in our free will.

Aesthesiaphilia, 10 months ago

Which of course brings up the question why you care if others choose to live differently than you, or if others choose to try to resolve their gender dysphoria by aligning their biology to match their brain's perception of what they should be? Or if they choose to enter relationships with other people of the same gender? How does that harm anyone?

10A, 10 months ago

God does not make mistakes. That principle was widely accepted as indisputable until recent times. Say it with me now, God does not make mistakes. It's not something we're allowed to doubt or question.

I care because this is spiritual warfare. Everyone who rejects God is choosing to follow Satan, whether or not they understand that. It is our moral duty to love one another as Jesus has loved us, which means to make our best effort to lead each other to God.

Please read your Bible. I want to point you to a single verse or two, but so much of the whole book deals with these topics that I find it overwhelming to think I could choose just one or two verses. We're discussing what God has repeatedly warned us against. If you care about humanity at all, you have a moral duty to make your best effort to stop this madness.

That's why.

Aesthesiaphilia, 10 months ago

"Ah shit, I might have fucked up"

• Jesus (Matthew 27:46)

But anyway, religion isn't rational, there's no way to reason or logic with someone basing their worldview on an elaborate schizophrenic delusion, so this is a dead end conversation.

fosho, 10 months ago

at the end of the day, you’re just an asshole for telling other people who they can and can’t be when it doesn’t affect you AT ALL.

minnieo, 10 months ago

transphobia literally = "outright hating who someone is as a person". are you okay???

HelixDab, 10 months ago

"Disagreements" are for things like tax milage, or whether or not a school needs a new football field. "Disagreements" are not for things like, "jews should be gassed", or "trans people are all pedophiles".

10A, 10 months ago

1. To be very clear, in my opinion, Jews should not be gassed (or otherwise murdered), and not all trans people are pedophiles (I don't know the stats, but I'd guess they're about the same as the rest of the population).
2. Anyone who disagrees on the preceding two points has every right to openly speak their mind in a free society. And whereas their free speech rights are our own free speech rights, we must defend their right to freely state their opinions in all public forums. Free speech is not for ideas we like, but precisely for the ideas we dislike.

fedosyndicate, 10 months ago

If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. [...] for it may easily turn out that [the intolerant] are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; [the intolerant] may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive [...] We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.

We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to [other crimes] as criminal.

spicy_biscuits, 10 months ago

Exactly this why is this so hard for these motherfuckers to understand

szczur, 10 months ago

Disagreeing with someone having the right to exist is not an opinion.

Cylusthevirus, 10 months ago

If your "certain view" is that trans people, other queer people, and/or anyone left of Tucker Carlson shouldn't exist, you've opted out of the social contract of tolerance and should expect to be shunned.

Tolerance is either a two way street or a suicide pact and I'm not here to watch people die so the worst dregs of humanity can spew their garbage.

PenguinJuice, 10 months ago

Whoa, I would never wish someone wouldn't exist anymore, wtf? Most moderate people I know just don't like the behavior, they don't hate the people... I know assholes exist who actually want to kill people who disagree with them but that exists on both sides of the aisle.

Aesthesiaphilia, 10 months ago

It's not "behavior", it's who they are.

minnieo, 10 months ago

Most moderate people I know just don't like the behavior

what does that even mean? what is 'the behavior'? i'd like to see you try and tell me without generalizing literally millions of people

fosho, 10 months ago

you could always … you know … not care. your life would be so much more fulfilling and meaningful if you stopped sticking your nose where it doesn’t belong.

z500, 10 months ago

Yes, because certainly this time around people are going to stop at side eye and clucking their tongues. Because it’s nothing but a difference of opinion, you see.

slicedcheesegremlin, 10 months ago

complexity does not inherently make your argument better. "Slavery is is horrible and evil but free black people shouldn't have the right to vote" is a "nuanced opinion," but that doesn't mean it isn't racist and terrible.

Aesthesiaphilia, 10 months ago

I agree in principle but that's not a great example

spicy_biscuits, 10 months ago

Look up the tolerance paradox and then suck my dick

Haan, 10 months ago

Why do you care? Is kbin.social not a free speech platform? If not, I’ll find somewhere else to go.

I don’t even agree with these folks, but if people are going to start raising a big stink because people are saying things they don’t like, I’m out.

10A, 10 months ago

I may disagree with what you have to say, but I'll fight to the death to defend your right to say it.

fosho, 10 months ago

until it’s hate speech. then you shouldn’t have the right to say it. because that makes you a dick-head who has broken the social contract.

szczur, 10 months ago

There's free speech in good faith, and the one in the bad. But that's not even about that. If someone's speech is basically "all trans people are a pedophiles and belong on the cross in defence of good christian values" (not a direct quote, just a representation) it's not free speech. It's hate speech and that kind of speech is not protected. Free speech is meant to protect voicing opinions. Thinking some people are not deserving of worthy living is not an opinion.

BobVersionFour, 10 months ago

I don’t even agree with these folks> if you sit at a table with 7 nazi that table contain 8 nazi

TheaoneAndOnly27, 10 months ago

Is there a way to block seeing any comments or posts from exploding heads?

rideranton, 10 months ago

You can block domains if you click on the domain next to the post, go to the sidebar and block it like a magazine

shatteredsteel, 10 months ago

That hasn't been functioning for me, I've had to go to each magazine individually to block them.

If I click the button on the instance it doesn't do anything, I still see the posts in my feed. I've tried on a few of the non-english instances (since I don't know other languages).

muftiboy, 10 months ago

cringe. grow up you fascist loser, go back to reddit

Harlan_Cloverseed, 10 months ago

Bigotry is not welcome here.

TooTallSol, 10 months ago

Thank you for exposing all the people who want kbin to be just like Reddit. If that is what kbin turns into then it can join spez right where he belongs.

Your calls for censorship should get YOU and your peers in this thread banned.

Harlan_Cloverseed, 10 months ago

Go hang out on Voat, bigot

szczur, 10 months ago

It's not censorship, it's keeping people acting in bad faith from easily act in derogatory ways actively harming people.

Aesthesiaphilia, 10 months ago

Nazi Punks Fuck Off