Administered by:
: Indigenous Terror 
@fuzzylynx@apeiron.aire.ml@cathal [octodon.social] in my last answer I’ve said that we already can act without involving developers. everyone wanting to act just have to block all to their heart content as it’s possible already. if people are too lazy for that, it’s not an excuse to require devs to make features that are excessive to application’s logic. @mayel @codewiz @Tusky @fedilab
@maloki@elekk.xyz@fuzzylynx
Thing is, you're literally trying to limit our free speech and freedom of association.
We don't want our app associated with Nazis if we can help it. That's our choice.
Then if people want to, or don't want to, associate themselves with us because of the decision we made that's entirely up to them, and completely okay.
@maloki @fuzzylynx @fedilab @Tusky @cathal [octodon.social] @mayel
Wikipedia has processes in place for moderating edits on highly polarizing articles, such as Tiananmen Square and Climate Change.
Over the years, Wikipedia has grown the reputation of being a neutral party (although it's been accused of many things, including pedophilia).
Similarly, I'd like the Fediverse to be seen as a neutral platform rather than anti-nazi, pro-democracy, anti-abortion, pro-family... That's a recipe for a thousand forks.
@codewiz @maloki @fuzzylynx @fedilab @Tusky @cathal [octodon.social] @mayel bold of you to assume Wikipedia has a reputation for 'neutrality', lol.
Anyways this is an app, who's developers are making a choice (to isolate, exclude, and mock those trying to organize the extermination of others - the obviously right choice), and uhhhhh being neutral in situations like this is being complicit in them so 
.
@codewiz Disappointing to see you confuse non-confrontation with neutrality, and resistance to oppression with oppression, and repeating baseless defense of WIkipedia.
Wikipedia might have a common reputation for neutrality, and that reputation has been used to legitimize the "balance" in unbalanced things. A good example, though certainly not the only one, is the slow removal of Tibet from the platform.
@emsenn Can you show a few examples from the history of an article where facts have been altered with a clear political agenda?
If you ever notice something like this, you should report it.
@codewiz Proving lack of neutrality isn't such an easy thing, and your immediate appeal to a list of examples makes me doubt how true you hold your own claim.
As my claim is "you shouldn't just let people claim a reputation for themselves," I feel unusually free of burden of proof. :P
@codewiz I also think responding to "you've confused resisting fascism for fascism," with "got some sources on that tiny supplemental claim?" is a poor response to the confusion.
But for what it's worth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wikipedia#Systemic_bias_in_coverage
Here's wikipedia's own coverage of their system bias in their coverage, which is revealing of quite a few biases, and I'm sure does not contain the whole of their bias.
@emsenn You have it backwards: proving lack of neutrality is as easy as showing a few instances where Wikipedia editors clearly pushed their political views in a dispute.
Proving neutrality, on the other hand, is very difficult. The way Wikipedia, is by having extremely transparent processes, including the entire history of edits (perhaps protecting the name of moderators in cases where there could be retaliation against them).
@codewiz Your understanding of neutrality is about 70 years out of date; the aftermath of the last world war established that it doesn't take "clearly pushing political views" to breach neutrality.
I've expressed my disappointment at what you're saying, you can choose to read more or dismiss what I'm saying on your own time, but I'd ask you to consider holding your tongue until you learn the difference between supremacists and those who resist them.