@Seirdy@pleroma.envs.net avatar

Seirdy

@Seirdy@pleroma.envs.net

Skim before following: https://seirdy.one/about/fediverse-greeting/. It describes how I accept follow requests, block people, etc.

Interested in #Accessibility, #Privacy, #Security (in that order).

I am made of microplastics and can be trusted with your forklift. @alizasystem's boywife, together since 2023-12-04.

tech-stuff: check my "uses" page: https://seirdy.one/about/uses/
Other tech interests in no particular order: linked data, the #IndieWeb, the #Gemini protocol (more into the community than the technology).

Politics: Leftist, capitalism bad, anti-consumerism.

Neuro-atypicality: #anxiety, #ADHD, #ActuallyAutistic.

:QueerCat_Pansexual:

Boundaries: if you're a minor or if we've not meaningfully interacted before, then don't be lewd/flirty with me. otherwise it's fine, in moderation.

Hashtags for #fedi22 searchability: #shitposting #poggies #LinkedData #SemanticWeb #panro #InclusiveDesign #ScreenReader #SearchEngines #anime #webdev #blogging #linux #Fedora #Sway #zsh #IndianAmerican #StarTrek

[Verifying my OpenPGP key: openpgp4fpr:AC6AF1F838DF3DCC2E47A6CF1E892DB2A5F84479]

This profile is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.

Seirdy, to random
@Seirdy@pleroma.envs.net avatar

Here’s something that annoys me a bit when I reference a blocklist. I say this with the understanding that large instances’ block-reasons visible to non-members should serve as reference for non-members (other mods, prospective users, etc.):

Intentionally vague terms such as “bad vibes” make for a great reason to block on a user level, or even a small tight-knit instance. Without further elaboration, they make for terrible reasons to attach to moderation decisions for large more-open instances. Such vagueness seems like a rhetorical tool to launder a lack of block reason. Seeing “Vibes” used this often on something that’s supposed to give transparency has weird vibes tells me something about how we’ve normalized rhetorically deceptive language in moderation transparency. Just be honest and leave the reason blank instead of exposing the fact that you can’t actually name what’s wrong with an instance.

A lack of explanation is fine. It’s honest: it means “we aren’t making this reason public”. It still gives prospective users useful information about which instances they can expect to connect to. But providing the appearance of a reason is something else. If I don’t know why you blocked an instance with no block-reason, I can ask. Then I’ll know if I should act on it too. If the reason is “vibes” then it gives the impression that I’m supposed to just “know”, and that I shouldn’t ask for receipts since it should be self-evident. It might be self-evident (a brief scroll through e.g. Poast makes its block-worthiness obvious), so say that instead to make it clear.

“Vibes” isn’t the only intentionally-vague term I’m aware of, and I’m guilty of propagating some in the past.

Again, this doesn’t apply on small tight-knit instances whose users know what their mods meant. Do whatever your members want on those. “Vibes” is also fine if you elaborate with specific reasons.


Oops, this got wordy. I think the length exaggerates how strongly I feel about this. TLDR: moderation transparency shouldn’t select vague terms to hide a lack of reasons. It invites more questions while also discouraging people from asking them. Be honest about your unwillingness to give a public reason by not providing one.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • megavids
  • rosin
  • ngwrru68w68
  • osvaldo12
  • DreamBathrooms
  • mdbf
  • magazineikmin
  • thenastyranch
  • Youngstown
  • khanakhh
  • everett
  • slotface
  • tacticalgear
  • kavyap
  • JUstTest
  • cubers
  • normalnudes
  • modclub
  • ethstaker
  • InstantRegret
  • GTA5RPClips
  • cisconetworking
  • Durango
  • Leos
  • provamag3
  • tester
  • anitta
  • lostlight
  • All magazines