Not only would I like to not hear about any of the assholes or shitty crap going on for a week, id like to not talk about them either. Is it even possible?

Not for like censorship reasons but for more mental health and logic reasons. Do people’s moods improve? Is more interesting and funny content generated? Does the media/news algorthym absolutely shit itself?

Yes yes I’m sure you can filter out what you don’t want to see personally and what not blah blah blah, but I mean for us. All of us. Maybe we just need to ignore the fuccbois for a bit. Imagine a world without them

  • 𝒍𝒆𝒎𝒂𝒏𝒏@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    9·
    10 months ago

    As you mentioned yourself: Filter it out + block users and communities you don’t like. It’s usually the same users posting anyway.

    People will still want to talk about stuff that you don’t care to know or see, and as long as it’s within the rules of the instance there’s nothing really wrong with it IMO

    Forcing all users to share your view of the fediverse for 168 hours would likely be a major cause of annoyance, and stretch our volunteer moderators out pretty thin…

  • breadsmasher@lemmy.worldEnglish
    112·
    10 months ago

    Its unhealthy to ignore and hide away from problems of the world.

    If you want to avoid that sort of content, either setup keyword / instance blocks to control what you see, or go offline entirely for some time.

    To follow your suggestion though - theres no one person/team that controls the fediverse. To get, for example, all trump posts banned across all the fediverse you would need agreement from all instance admins to agree to it, and enforce it

    • Quadhammer@lemmy.worldOP
      63·
      10 months ago

      Its unhealthy to ignore and hide away from problems of the world.

      I’d argue it’s unhealthy to obsess over the same topics every day/week/month/year but okay a week off from it is “unhealthy?” Nah.

      To get, for example, all trump posts banned across all the fediverse you would need agreement from all instance admins to agree to it, and enforce it

      Yeah I kinda figured. Could the whole fediverse ignore man babies for a week? I bet no, but I’d love to be surprised

      • breadsmasher@lemmy.worldEnglish
        61·
        10 months ago

        There is a huge range between “entirely ignore” and “obsess over”. Vastly more nuance you are just ignoring.

      • intensely_human@lemm.ee
        2·
        10 months ago

        I’d argue it’s unhealthy to obsess over the same topics every day/week/month/year

        Then stop obsessing over them.

        And stop projecting your obsession onto the entire fediverse.

      • cali_ash
        1·
        10 months ago

        I’d argue it’s unhealthy to obsess over the same topics every day/week/month/year but okay a week off from it is “unhealthy?” Nah.

        So don’t obsess about them and/or take a week off if you need to.

        But why should your personal issue with some topics affect everyone else?

        • Quadhammer@lemmy.worldOP
          11·
          10 months ago

          I mean my whole feed was nothing but Trump and Elon when I made the post. So universally disliked but getting so much attention to encourage the behavior

  • Nibodhika@lemmy.world
    5·
    10 months ago

    No, it’s impossible to do that on the feediverse, that’s the whole idea of a decentralized network.

    That being said I never read stuff about either of them, so the best idea for you might be, like we say in Brazil, stop getting scabies to scratch yourself.

  • demesisx@infosec.pubEnglish
    62·
    10 months ago

    I’ll decide what I see and don’t see, thank you very much.

    What kind of chump would support a paternalistic idea like this?

    Go back to Reddit and stay there if you want to force restrictions on other users for their own good.

    • Quadhammer@lemmy.worldOP
      11·
      10 months ago

      Yeah okay keep feeding the monster then here I’ve got one for you “Go back to the Washington Post and write an article about how this post oppressed you so much”

  • sin_free_for_00_days@sopuli.xyz
    3·
    10 months ago

    We just really need a good customizable keyword filter. I tried the Lemmy Keyword Filter userscript, but it was unreliable for me. There are always a handful of topics that I just don’t want to see. Either for a few days, a few weeks, or forever.

  • tal@lemmy.today
    3·
    10 months ago

    1. Find a community with content that you like aside from some annoying topics.

    2. Create a new community with mod rules restricting some content (e.g. “news no politics”). /r/CasualUK did this, explicitly banned politics.

    3. Attract new users who have the same preference.

  • Willie@kbin.social
    3·
    10 months ago

    No, it’s not, and it’d be an example of the decentralization working as intended.

    The benefits of being able to have many communities for the same thing can really shine here. As an ‘experiment’, make a lemmy instance of your own, ban all discussion of these topics, and create communities for the things you like there while enforcing the new rules. If the benefits of not discussing those topics are worthwhile to people, they’ll start interacting with your instance and you’ll have made a nice thing for yourself. Otherwise I guess you can keep to yourself in the bubble that you were seeking to create.

  • andyburke@fedia.io
    2·
    10 months ago

    You’re getting the response you expected, and that’s just how it is, but I am here in solidarity with being so FUCKING BORED of having to hear about these motherfuckers all the time.

    • Quadhammer@lemmy.worldOP
      11·
      10 months ago

      Yeah it’s like giving dumbass unruly kids a mic and a stage and then encouraging bad behavior

      • livus@kbin.social
        52·
        10 months ago

        We did. You basically said you would rather we all stopped talking about fuccbois instead of you filtering it out client side.

        but I mean for us. All of us.

        • Rhynoplaz@lemmy.world
          2·
          10 months ago

          The first two words were Thought Experiment. Usually that implies, “Hey, what do you think would happen if X? Is it even possible?”

          • livus@kbin.social
            2·
            10 months ago

            @Rhynoplaz sure, but your their thought experiment was about whether or not it would be possible for you them to ban the fediverse from talking about some topics.

            People who are telling you them they don’t want that, are simply responding to the hypothetical.

            • Rhynoplaz@lemmy.world
              2·
              10 months ago

              I had nothing to do with this. Just a rando passing through reading comments. I saw OP was getting jumped on for their phrasing.

              If they had said “What if we could go a week without hearing about these fucks?” Everybody would celebrate the idea, but most people ignored that part and couldn’t help but attack OP over censorship.

              I just felt bad that nobody was actually participating in the question, but going out of their way to bring OP down.

              • livus@kbin.social
                2·
                10 months ago

                @Rhynoplaz sorry, have corrected my comment.

                Fair enough. I see what you mean. If OP had asked what if we collectively agreed to stop doing something instead of asking what if it were possible to ban us from doing it “for” our own good, the conversation would be different.

          • intensely_human@lemm.ee
            1·
            10 months ago

            Einstein’s thought experiments led to the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

            Every real world experiment starts as a thought experiment. Especially if your “thought experiment” takes the form of “is this even possible? How could we do this?”

  • SavvyWolf@pawb.socialEnglish
    2·
    10 months ago

    If you’re pushing for restricting certain views for a few days, that’s still censorship. You can argue whether it’s justified or not, but it’s still censorship.

    Regarding whether it’s possible or not; technically it is. There are certainly instances or groups of instances that have imposed strict federation requirements and closed themselves off in little bubbles, for better or worse. You’d probably not get the entire fediverse on board though, especially if it’s “just an experiment”.

    Also, these people are political figureheads; blocking discussions about them won’t actually solve anything. People will still talk about their policies and opinions. If you block that, people will argue about what should and shouldn’t be blocked (hint: it isn’t self-evident).

    I think the system we have works fine. Explicit political things are usually behind comment warnings (on Masto). Many communities have “no politics” rules (although imo moderators should be better about that…).

    Also, there is so much bad news on the fediverse that doesn’t traditionally count as politics. Imo it’s a bit naïve to assume that banning discussions about certain people will magically make people happier.

    • Quadhammer@lemmy.worldOP
      11·
      10 months ago

      I was merely suggesting taking away the children’s stage. Perhaps people just have to decide they’re bored of the subject on their own. Too bad there’s a billion dollar media machine committed to that not happening