@ErikUden das letzte Bild mit Aufzählung der Millionäre und mehr versteht ich nicht ganz. Dafür ist mein Englisch zu schlecht. Meint diese Person dass straight white men die keine Millionäre sind unterdrückt werden?
@ErikUden It's a little funny how in that last post he trips over structural racism and sexism without realizing he has. I believe the name of the Facebook tag group is "Conservatives walking backwards into the point."
@skobkin No, I'm suggesting to defederate from instances who not only allow but endorse users who disobey your rules, especially when it comes to discrimination, disinformation, etc.
If Threads was a Mastodon instance it would violate almost every instance's rules.
@skobkin they endorse users who disobey our rules by pushing accounts like Moms for Liberty, Gays Against Groomers, or other alt-right and far right accounts / viewpoints. They allow such users on their platform even after reporting, which means they are tolerating what they are posting.
Again, if this was a Fedi instance it'd be defederated.
@ErikUden
I see.
But still if it's their instance then your rules don't apply there.
Not sure how they can endorse someone to your instance users though.
Also not sure why ban entire instance instead of just suspending or limiting bad actors too.
It lowers an amount of moderation work needed, but degrades the decentralized network.
For me personally instance user's ability to read anyone is more important.
@skobkin have you ever run a social network? You're telling me I should individually ban each Nazi on the 141 million user social network instead of just defederating from the Nazi network all together? Sorry not sorry, but that's just not possible. Every Admin has a limited amount of time. If your instance isn't moderating discrimination it has no place interacting with our users.
Those were the rules for every other Fediverse instance, and we do not discriminate nor favor Threads in any way. They are to be treated like every other instance.
For me personally an instance's user's ability to not be harassed but protected is more important.
Not that I'm some kind of fedi guru, but I've been saying for months that federating with #threads will initiate the 'mega-instance scenario' whereby one or more huge servers destroys the entire MO of the #fediverse
Prob the only solution is a limit on server size
The fediverse only works when it is a mass of small / medium sized servers that can block each other at will
@maelduin13
We already have this problem with mastodon.social. When some instances wanted to limit/ban .social because it had problematic content/users and the others instances admins couldn't get the .social admins to moderate their instance, some people went crazy "you can't block them, they're the biggest instance, you would kill the Fediverse !".
@maelduin13@ErikUden@skobkin@themeowcate@erosalie@trumpet I'm probably wading in with not enough social context, so apologies, but the point of federation for me was never to enable server-level blocks. In a sentence, it was to enable, at scale, new ways of operating that don't depend on monopolistic control.
Moderation itself could be federated (and imho should be), making it possible for instance operators to meaningfully delegate moderation to trusted organization(s).
@maelduin13@ErikUden@skobkin@themeowcate@erosalie@trumpet Mastodon's a latecomer to the game. 😅 I honestly thought we'd missed our chance back in ~2009, but it's still so very early — lots can and will change yet. ❤️
I don't think we'll end up in a centralized control situation, because instance admins (and users & their communities!) will still have choice and control. It's obviously a risk, but the important thing is to build alternatives with intention.
@maelduin13@ErikUden@skobkin@themeowcate@erosalie@trumpet probably important to say that I do believe (and hope!) that "non-globally-federating communities" will be an important part of the fediverse. My hope is that the scope and complexity of the fediverse becomes synonymous with the web & the internet so that everyone can benefit, not just people who are comfortable in alt spaces.
I do like the idea of MaaS to help out overburdened server admins - particularly if it's bespoke
But I don't think this addresses the risk of a mega instance run by a Musk or Zuckerberg effectively becoming the default and allowing e.g. Kremlin propaganda to permeate the fediverse
It seems to me like it's a matter of people wanting AP to become the dominant protocol, whatever the cost
@maelduin13@ErikUden@skobkin@themeowcate@erosalie@trumpet I'd put it this way: right now, Musk & Zuck are the default, and have no incentive to change. Many people would like alternatives, but have a higher affinity to their community (on Meta/X) than they do protocol politics. I don't think anything gets better without a federated social model as default. Nb, I think it's a necessary but not nearly sufficient condition. 😅
@maelduin13@ErikUden@skobkin@themeowcate@erosalie@trumpet (https://mastodon.social/@blaine/109327688462036016 for more context; I used to think that one person or organization could make or break this "stuff", not as a matter of morality or achievement, but happenstance. I now realize that this work is humanity. It literally takes and will continue to take a cast of billions; being closed to scale is important sometimes, but at this moment/context I think it means letting the usurers win 😢)
I think we are very much at the 'Sophie's choice' stage
I'm torn when I suggest a limit on server size as I'm aware that it could permanently scupper the chances of AP being the dominant protocol
But if, in a year or two's time, the fediverse is as big as twitter once was and has even a quarter the amount of Kremlin disinfo then it will have failed
Question: I've spotted inauthentic accounts amplifying Russian misinformation and/or intentionally stoking division here on mastodon, moreso recently. I usually call them out and then block (and they'll usually block me themselves). Should I be reporting?
We have reports to deal with that. You can say that reports are reactive and not proactive. But then you're becoming biased to a LOT of users just because they've chosen their instance without thorough due diligence.
Not sure how this helps to protect users because bad actor can register on your instance or any other instance you're still federating with 🤷
In the end you'll still be reacting to that after the fact.
@skobkin
It's simple. If bad actors register on an instance you're federating with, you report it to this instance's admins. If they don't see the problem, you deferedate with them because they're going to let problematic users and content reach your instance.
If bad actors register on your instance, contact your admins. If they don't care, change instance for the same reasons.
Federation is a tool, not a duty. If you think "just report, block them, deal with it", that's X.
@themeowcate@ErikUden
> Federation is a tool, not a duty
> If you think "just report, block them, deal with it", that's X.
Ok, let's suppose that I have my own instance which I don't right now.
The only thing I don't think is that I have right to decide what users CAN read. If I feel that the instance can be malicious, I can LIMIT them, so bad actors from there won't reach my users on their own. But if my users WANT to read someone there, I shouldn't be the one to tell them if they can or not :philosoraptor:
@skobkin
Yes, you can, you absolutely can. And if your users are not happy with that, Mastodon has tools to change instance : they're not forced to stay here as they'd transfer their account.
Your instance, your moderation rules. Like if you own a forum. A Discord server. A Minecraft server. You can even have an closed Mastodon instance for your work or a small group of friends.
This is not like others social networks trying to connect the whole world together whatever the cost.
Add comment