re: federation psa 

efdn.club, myasstodon.xyz, gamemaking.social and pettingzoo.co also suspended this instance. There were no attempts to warn or notify us.

Show thread

policy change 

Original version of this instance policy said: "Note that this server will not be shut down permanently for at least 12 months after the moment this notice is still there."

This changes today to "Note that this server will not be shut down permanently until at least March 13th, 2022."

Further service disruptions due to defederation are expected during the remaining year. You are advised to move to another instance.

re: federation psa 

Unfortunately, some other instances, including tech.lgbt, octodon.social and monads.online also suspended this instance.

We did not receive any prior warnings from them; and did not receive any related communications from some of these instances.

We tried to communicate with their admins, but we were only able to get a response along the lines "we defederated because of you did not take any actions over unspecified block evasion and unspecified behavior of one of your users", and further attempts to clarify were left unanswered.

Considering that in the past it took us two months to get lgbt.io to reverse their block (which they imposed basically because of the technical issue), two months _after_ we learned about defederation and first reached out to their admins - I don't see any point in trying to appeal these defederations, regardless of what will go on with embracing.space.

So you may safely assume that federation with these instances will never be restored. Unfortunately, we also have no way of knowing what other instances suspended embracing.space (but we expect this list to grow over time).

I advise you to move to some other instance.

Show thread

@Colophonscrawl @zorotl It is a long post, in my opinion it does not reflect reality of what happened and what continues to happen at all, and honestly I don't have the spoons to reply right now. I hope I'll be able to revisit it later.

However, on one specific point:
"He had to block a bunch of new accounts she made, at least one of which had a name directly referencing how she had been banned before"

I'm not sure if you mean fedi or twitch?
If fedi, then please share these accounts with me (you can do it in DMs). I do not condone block evasion, and accounts on this instance should not be used to evade blocks.
If twitch, then I'm sorry but I cannot be responsible for what people are doing there, I don't have twitch, I cannot check anything, I cannot check if there was some context, and honestly if your problem is with how someone behaves on twitch, then you should probably bring it up with twitch.
(I wonder if reports I received urging me to suspend Luna for "block evasion", reports which referred to nothing specific, were also related to some twitch thing?)

fedi meta, official announcement to fedi 

I'm so tired of the meta.

No, pedophiles or fascists or nazis are absolutely not allowed to remain on this instance. They all should be suspended immediately.

But just saying "X is a pedophile" or "X is a nazi" does not make X a pedophile or a nazi.

If I receive a bunch of name-calling reports saying "X is pedo, suspend them at once, you nazi piece of shit" and do not act on them, it is not because this instance is welcome to pedophiles (it is not). It is because I do not think X is a pedophile (and also because calling me names does not make your argument any more compelling).

And it would require a bit more to convince me they're a pedophile than just posting taken-out-of-context screenshots of their controversial take on child autonomy, made two months ago on another instance - take that was posted from the perspective of children, and for which they already apologized.

Just stop dogpiling for once. Don't make it your life goal to expel this person from fedi for that one old take. Don't make it your life goal to drive them to suicide.

Maybe try checking the context of these screenshots.
Maybe try not automatically interpreting that take in bad faith.
Maybe try to think what would your reaction be if it was posted by someone just a couple of years younger, before their 18th birthday.

re: csa, screenshots 

@zorotl Are you saying that the original bad take was posted with a goal of getting sexual interactions with minors; with a goal of grooming them so that sexual interactions become possible once they're 18 and groomed?

"Something is posted in order to get sexual interactions with minors" is a legitimate concern.

Promoting this concern relentlessly over the entire fediverse with regard to the original bad take is acting in an extremely bad faith.

If you have any specific reasons to suspect some user of this instance actually grooms someone or solicits sexual interactions from someone under 18, I'll be glad to hear you out. Such a behavior is absolutely unacceptable on this instance.

@Colophonscrawl @zorotl I'm not throwing out a bunch of hypotheticals to discuss them.

I'm not asking these three questions; that's why they're enclosed in doublequotes.

I'm throwing out a bunch of hypotheticals to demonstrate that there is a space for conversation about minors' rights and about minors' autonomy, and that participation in such a conversation does not automatically makes a person child sexual abuser or a pedophile.

I won't have this conversation there.

@esvrld @LunaDragofelis No, grooming is not fine. Any kind of sexual or lewd-related interaction or with minors is absolutely unacceptable on this instance.

That does not mean "_any_ kind of interaction between 18+ and 18- people is grooming", and does not mean "18- people consuming lewd content is grooming", and does not mean "if you're posting lewd content, you should post it followers-only, lock your account, and only approve people who are older than 18".

That also does not mean conversation about status quo is unacceptable.

re: csa, screenshots 

@zorotl I'll try to make it extremely simple.

Consider three questions:

"Are relationships between a person who turned 18 yesterday and a person who will turn 18 tomorrow automatically a child sexual abuse?"

"Are relationships between a person who is 60 and a person who turned 18 yesterday automatically _not_ a child sexual abuse?"

"Are people who did not yet turn 18 not allowed to be horny at all (regardless of the place or the circumstances)?"

Are these questions legitimate?
Is it possible to have a discussion about these questions without automatically becoming a child sexual abuser?
Is it possible to, while participating in such a discussion, make a mistake or to formulate things quite badly without meaning so, without considering the implications, without automatically becoming a child sexual abuser?
Is it possible to then admit such a mistake, without automatically becoming a child sexual abuser forever?

@esvrld @LunaDragofelis Soliciting sexual interactions from minors is absolutely not allowed on that instance.

Screenshots you have posted are a part of legitimate talk on children autonomy, if extremely badly formulated.

My views are that this conversation has the right to exist.
My views are that this conversation, just as the conversation about providing puberty blockers to minors, is not "soliciting sexual interactions from minors", as much as some users on fedi or some lawmakers would want me to believe. (To be clear, I'm not saying these two things can be compared; I'm saying that it is a similar stretch.)
My views are that criticism should not take the form of "soliciting sexual interactions from minors" unless there is an actual solicitation of sexual interactions from minors.

federation psa 

Unfortunately, elekk.xyz apparently suspended this instance, because its admins are not comfortable allowing their space (which includes minors) to overlap with this space.

I do not think that the person in question poses any danger to minors or breaks any rules, so I won't take any action on that, and the federation status between us and elekk.xyz will not change.

In practice this means that while this instance still receives (some) posts from elekk, interaction with elekk users will be impossible, your interactions (likes, boosts, replies, comments) will never reach elekk.

If you have friends on elekk, it might be time for you to look for another instance.

I would also like to use this opportunity to reiterate that child sexual abuse, child sexual abuse apologies, or apologies of any abuse of knowingly unhealthy power dynamics are not tolerated on this instance.

@magicalmilly @KingBee @skelly "they interacted with people that had actively blocked them when they were on vulpine"

Yes, I agree, that _is_ a block evasion, thank you for bringing it up.

@KingBee @skelly Regarding your second point: _admins_ of vulpine suspended Luna, not _users_ of vulpine.

The fact that admins of vulpine do not want to host Luna does not automatically mean that every single user of vulpine does not want to interact with Luna.

The reason Luna created an account on this instance was to have an account on Mastodon. This is not the block evasion; vulpine admins do not have the authority to banish someone from the entire fediverse.

@KingBee @skelly No, Luna did not say exactly that (and in fact later she explicitly said that it is not okay). Yes, the take in question can be interpreted that way, which makes it a bad take. It does not warrant banishing the person from fediverse forever though (and right now, as an admin of this instance, I'm getting a number of demands which boil down to that).

admin boosted

@skelly @KingBee Making a new account and using it to interact with people who (knowingly for you) blocked your old account is block evading. People blocked you, they don't want you to interact with them, you have to respect that decision.

Making a new account on the same instance that suspended your old account is block evading. Its admins decided they don't want to host you, you have to respect that decision.

Making a new account on a new instance because an old instance had suspended you is not block evading.

(This toot would not exist if I was not currently spammed by moderation reports that sound like "Luna is wrong and she had a bad take two months ago")

@skelly @KingBee Making a new account and using it to interact with people who (knowingly for you) blocked your old account is block evading. People blocked you, they don't want you to interact with them, you have to respect that decision.

Making a new account on the same instance that suspended your old account is block evading. Its admins decided they don't want to host you, you have to respect that decision.

Making a new account on a new instance because an old instance had suspended you is not block evading.

(This toot would not exist if I was not currently spammed by moderation reports that sound like "Luna is wrong and she had a bad take two months ago")

Show older
Embracing space

The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!