I was unable to post on Instagram this morning because I have a link in my account to mas.to (my mastodon instance). No idea which one of these Meta is accusing mas.to of, but this is why you should not trust Meta or federate with anything they build. If they get to be the largest Mastodon server, then they can start dictating their regressive content moderation policies on the rest of the fediverse. I stand with my admin @trumpet and their decision to preemptively block any Meta instances.
@camhunt Very interesting. I wondered when the news about #Threads broke yesterday whether it was related to the notification I got from FB the other day that they had removed a post because it was "spam." I heard from several people who had had posts linking to Mastodon content removed with a similar notification. Way to make nice with the fediverse, Zuck!
@camhunt So disgusting. I'm leaving WhatsApp and progressively Facebook. I don't want anything from the Meta group. Your post just convincing me more in this way...
@strathamer Instagram doesn’t feel like a community at all to me. It feels like a million people trying to appease an algorithm so they can gain followers and engagement. It’s really a depressing place to spend time and I’m contemplating just dropping it altogether
@camhunt@strathamer I dropped it a few weeks ago after the "pay or let us breach UE laws" message. The problem is that IG has a chokehold on many, many local businesses/bands/associations and staying updated without FB or IG is tricky. I also miss certain activists/content creators which are exclusively on large plataforms. Otherwise, It is bliss.
@camhunt@strathamer I wish it was possible to leave WhatsApp, sadly everyone here uses it as their sole communication platform (plus sometimes Instagram dms which is worse), so if I deleted it I would miss vital information and basically not be able to have much of a social life, I’d just not be able to be contacted by the vast majority of people. I hate that they have this quasi-monopoly. I try to use signal whenever possible, but I can’t see it breaking that grip WhatsApp has on the communication of people anytime soon
@enby_of_the_apocalypse@strathamer That’s OK. I still use Instagram. You don’t have to defend your choices of social network or messenger. It’s a choice only you can make. A lot of people, particularly trans people, have found safety on Mastodon because transphobia is largely unwelcome here. But if Threads is allowed to federate, all their transphobic users and content will now be a part of the fediverse and trans users will be robbed of their choice
@camhunt@enby_of_the_apocalypse@strathamer regardless of an instance’s position on federating with Threads an individual can still block an entire instance. The choice and the controls remain robust. This is a big part of the benefit of Masto/fedi.
@wiredfire@enby_of_the_apocalypse@strathamer The content moderation policy of "allow hateful content but there's user options to block it" is a popular one. It's used on Bluesky and Twitter. But the fediverse, up until now, has not worked that way. Fediverse admins proactively block servers that will not properly moderate their content. It's a large reason why many trans users feel safe on here. Making an exemption for Threads betrays the trust and safety of those trans users.
Fediverse admins are, and should be, free to follow whatever approach they like. I don't think we should have a consensus. That's the key to fedi - anyone can have their own setup to suit them.
You and I might not agree with the approach, and we can chose and individual or server level to disengage.
Like Truth Social is clearly a cesspit, but I acknowledge their right to exist - awful as they are - for a number of reasons.
to be clear: I am not defending Threads 😉 But I do think fedi already has the structure to allow those who want to be safe from their nonsense to be so.
@wiredfire@enby_of_the_apocalypse@strathamer See, if I was having a discussion about content moderation I simply would not admit that Truth Social has a right to exist. No it doesn't. De-platforming works and we should do it to all racists, transphobes, and bigots. The idea they will spread their hate if de-platformed is a myth, and a dangerous one because it justifies allowing bigoted hate on social networks, which allows it to spread.
Anyway as to your suggestion to agree with you or stay out of your mentions I’ll take that as the end to the good faith conversation I thought we were having and leave you to enjoy your echo chamber. 🔇
@wiredfire@enby_of_the_apocalypse@strathamer Deplatforming worked with Richard Spencer and Milo Yiannopoulos, who are now penniless and unable to spread hate. I don't think a conversation with someone who thinks Truth Social has "a right to exist" is a conversation conducted in good faith. Literally no private company has a right to exist! Least of all Truth Social!
Perhaps think of it more like this:
Do you want purveyors of hate hidden away in untouchable dark web forums or have them visible and KNOW what bollocks they’re up to?
Keep them where we can see them. Government attempts at controlling them is making them less visible and more dangerous. This is already a thing.
But also we either have a free and open web or we don’t. We have, and should have, controls over our interactions but I’m not sure we should be decreeing what views should be permitted or not. Sets a bad precedent. It only becomes a matter of time before your views end up being something whoever the in-crowd are decide shouldn’t be allowed air.
@wiredfire Do I want people who spread hate to be hidden away on small backwater forums so they can't spread their hate to more people? Yes, absolutely.
@wiredfire I don't agree with government control over free speech. I support communities coming together and blocking, shaming, punching, and otherwise stigmatizing all bigots so they feel unwelcome in society. That's what I am trying to advocate for. I am trying to argue for admins to continue doing something they are already doing (block servers that do not moderate transphobia) so that trans people continue to be safe on the fediverse.
@wiredfire You can either join in solidarity or you can continue arguing that transphobes and bigots should be welcomed in society for some hairbrained reason that you dreamed up for some misguided idea of "openness". I'm not even arguing that Threads should be removed from the web! We simply do not have to federate with it!
We know de-platforming works because bigots fight against it so strongly. If de-platforming helped bigots, why do bigots oppose it?
Bigotry needs to be isolated and sidelined and given as little chance to be noticed as possible.
Bigots want attention by any means possible, because they know a certain percentage of the audience will agree with them. Don't give them an audience. Block them. Isolate them. Deny them any coverage.
@camhunt@trumpet
I wonder if it has to do with mas.to blocking Instagram and Threads? This would make it impossible for Instagram to confirm your link. So, it may not be because the link goes to Mastodon, but rather that the link goes to an unavailable location.
@camhunt@trumpet This is exactly what I've been telling folks. No Threads is not going to lure away users any more than AOL did. Everybody knows they're a dinosaur ppl are only using because of social inertia. The threat is that they're going to leverage excitement of folks on fedi to get access to that audience to impose backwards moderation policies, policing, surveillance, etc. on the instances that are our homes.
@dalias@trumpet Exactly. They have already got the largest Mastodon instance to make an exception to their "block instances that don't properly moderate transphobic content" rule. They are already asserting their influence on the fediverse and it has to be stopped now.
@nf3xn@camhunt@trumpet This has nothing to do with caring whether Facebook's apps work and everything to do with making exceptions to moderation policies against abuse at Facebook's direction. That is absolutely "asserting influence on the fediverse".
@nf3xn@dalias@trumpet Fediverse admins routinely block entire servers that allow transphobia to proliferate. This is an intentional policy that protects trans people. Threads harbors many transphobic accounts. Libs of TikTok, PragerU, Gays Against Groomers. Why isn't Threads blocked by the admin of mastodon.social? Because an exception was made. If Meta has enough influence to make an exemption to that policy, what else can they influence?
@camhunt@nf3xn@dalias@trumpet Can servers implement account-by-account blocks? If it were me, assuming an API that allows me to observe profiles and follow relationships, I would replicate the thing I built (for myself) on Twitter, and "discover" the shitty social network centered around the shitty accounts, and block all of them. This network WILL include elected Republican government officials, FYI, but the algorithm says they suck, and who am I to argue with an algorithm?
@dr2chase@nf3xn@dalias@trumpet The current policy is to proactively block entire servers if they are not moderated well. This provides the most safety. Do you think we should exchange safety for the company with the most privacy violations on earth? I wouldn’t.
@nf3xn@dr2chase@dalias@trumpet The largest Mastodon instance that is run by the sole person who makes decisions about the software which every instance runs? Yes, I am complaining about that. Feel free to block me.
@nf3xn@dalias@dr2chase@trumpet My own personal choice for using Facebook and Instragram is to stay in touch with my family. Many trans users chose Mastodon because of it's content moderation policies blocked entire servers that would not moderate transphobia. They should have a choice, just like I do. Federating Threads leaves them to block transphobia piecemeal, which is a huge burden. That's one of the main reasons why the content moderation policy is what it is today!
@nf3xn@dalias@dr2chase@trumpet They do have a personal choice: they can join Threads. This isn't how community safety works, BTW. You could make this bad faith argument about any server that mastodon.social has blocked. "You're prohibiting the user's personal choice to interact with glindr.org". What a joke! You can always access these websites directly if you really want transphobic content.
@nf3xn@dr2chase@dalias@trumpet You're trying to make this a debate about individual choices instead of content moderation policies and it isn't working. Mastodon.social has blocked many servers on the basis that they do not moderate transphobic content, but not Threads. Why?
@camhunt@trumpet I think you’re overstating the influence Meta would be able to have. Which isn’t to say that they shouldn’t be treated with great caution, of course.
But even if they become the largest fedi platform by numbers they won’t have any more sway over what any given mastodon or Pixelfed etc.. instance does that they currently have over each other. Fedi will be fine, it’s a fundamental part of its core design to be.
@wiredfire@trumpet Wrong. Their influence is already being felt. Any other instance with the same content moderation policies would normally be defederated on account of transphobia. Threads has many blatant transphobic accounts, which many admins are ignoring in order to federate with Threads. If admins are willing to compromise their values for Meta, what then?
@camhunt@trumpet "If admins are willing to compromise their values for Meta, what then?"
Then users of those instances have the freedom to migrate to an instance that better aligns with their values, as has always been the case. In fact we have seen that happen several times in recent years with instances that have gone.. bad..!
Exit costs are minimal on mastodon with account migration.
@wiredfire Yes, I'm aware. I've moved accounts before. It's easy to move followers but you lose all your posts.
I find it frustrating that in the face of federating with a known transphobic server your response is "well you can always move". In my opinion you can either join in asking better of our admins or you can stay out of my mentions, please and thank you.
@trumpet I can’t imagine what Meta thinks happens on this instance. Maybe they’re just doing what Twitter tried by banning Mastodon instances (or perhaps just the ones that declined to meet with them!)
Add comment