I’m increasingly convinced that defederation of Threads will backfires against the instances that defederate.
There is a vocal, but small, minority of users who have very strict opinions on Threads, the Fediverse and Mastodon. But they’re a minority.
The more Threads will federate, the more users who aren’t part of this minority but have to live with the consequences of its demands will ask for a different direction. https://social.coop/@jsit/112207362680439053
@stefan Hence why using defederation in this case is a clear abuse of the feature.
I could use the exact same logic to ask for the defederation of any server that do not moderate reply guys and other toxic extremists well. These people also display well documented harmful behavior, and contribute to make Mastodon a hostile place, especially for Black users. And yet, I’ve never seen a single person asking for this. Why?
@stefan A moderation policy based on such gross double standards is by definition a really bad moderation policy. It’s quite literally exactly what Elon Musk has been doing since he took over Twitter.
Albeit obviously not comparable in intensity, in the case of defederating with Threads, it hurts users who are on an instance that decided to defederate but who disagree with the decision.
@o_simardcasanova Personally, I apply the same standards across the board.
I have Gab, Truth Social, and maybe some other instances blocked because of the same unwillingness/inability to moderate its users.
If there are others who want to block Threads, and don't apply the same standards elsewhere, or consistently, I can't speak to that, but I can definitely see why that would be frustrating.
@stefan There’s also a documented history of instances getting blocked by other instances due to personal vendetta and some form of performative activism. Application of existing rules is also widely deficient. And don’t even get me started on CSAM, which is also poorly moderated on many Mastodon instances.
The moderation on Meta’s platforms is bad, but it’s wishful thinking to believe that moderation on Mastodon is vastly better.
@o_simardcasanova Yes, and these are some of the reasons I run my own server, so I definitely see where you're coming from.
I'd like to think I'm consistent with applying my standards (my blocklist is public, happy to share a link), and I can absolutely see how seeing people who don't is frustrating.
@stefan Also, I think it’s fallacious to compare Threads with Gab or Truth Social. Threads’ moderation issues is the result of very different circumstances and forces compared to platforms that are clearly stating they’re far right.
Also, neither Gab or TS provide any value whatsoever. But Threads hosts POTUS, many elected officials, many media and many journalists. Cutting Mastodon users from these accounts is a real issue.
@o_simardcasanova And this is where I personally see a double standard: Threads hosting so many high-profile accounts makes it a fair trade-off to not apply the same expectations on moderations.
To me, I don't care why you can't or won't moderate your users. Hire more moderators. Split your instance into smaller, more manageable instances. Just get things under control.
@o_simardcasanova I see the conversation spilling over to different branches, so I will reply here.
The main points I see you making are:
(1) You want users to make their choice on which instances to block.
And I agree! Again, one of the reasons I run my own instance. I've seen people getting caught up in moderator fights. Glad I never had to deal with that.
@o_simardcasanova But I also think it's fair to want to be on an instance that is anti-Meta, anti-Threads, or anti-corporate-fedi. Those instances should exist to give people the freedom to choose their experience without having to run their own instance. It can be a pain!
And that's fair! There are people who are consistently against all things Meta, or any corporate presence in the fediverse. I am not necessarily in these groups, I just want moderators to do their job, no matter the instance.
I really feel like we agree on a lot here. We both value people's freedom to choose their fediverse experience. We want fair, consistent rules.
@o_simardcasanova I just feel like you're a bit too easy on Threads. We agree that their moderation is poor, for whatever reason. I'd just prefer they get better at it first, while you want to wait until...I'm guessing their users harass users on your instance?
@stefan I don’t think Meta will ever have any decent moderation. Considering the size of their platform, it would cost them a lot of money to properly moderate. They probably have the money, but as far as I know, they are not interested in this kind of investment.
To me, the question is instead wether Threads is acceptable in its current form. Because it will probably is its "definitive" form.
@stefan It’s not a simple question, and I think defederation removes all the complexities and nuances that should be more explicitly discussed.
There is another, wildly unanswered question, about moderation on decentralized platforms. Research is ongoing, and it will probably take years to create the tools we need.
@stefan It’s not directly related, but I think Bluesky is a real threat to both Meta, and Mastodon.
Its stackable moderation is a powerful approach, that answers many of these issues. Meta would have to go through a massive cultural change to accept something similar. Mastodon is more likely to implement something similar, but the limited resources of the ecosystem mean it will probably take years to implement it.
@stefan My overall position is probably that moderation on decentralized platforms should be taken a lot more carefully. Grand statements about Threads being a danger, or Mastodon moderation being fundamentally superior, are dangerous.
My ultimate goal is to put end users in control. Which Bluesky does really well. And Mastodon, it really depends on your instance.
@o_simardcasanova You are probably right that the moderation on Threads is as good as it will ever get, and that's the frustrating part for me.
I feel like giving them a pass makes me inconsistent. If the GLAAD report was about, say mastodon.social, and their moderators did nothing to address it, I'd have to block them as well.
But they likely would.
I know other fediverse instances don't always get things right, but in most cases I believe they're at least trying.
@o_simardcasanova Also, just to add, from what I've read on here, blocking a domain on a user level without the AUTHORIZED_FETCH option enabled on the server is more like a mute rather than an actual block, so that does make a difference.
@stefan I don’t have any reason to suspect Meta isn’t trying. This is why Threads is different from Gab or Truth Social.
At the end, weighting the pros and the cons is a matter of individual preferences. Hence why I think it is deeply misguided to act at the instance level. Simplifying the UI to block domains at the individual user is something I think would add a lot of value.
@o_simardcasanova "I don’t have any reason to suspect Meta isn’t trying."
I thought that was the point you're making here:
"They probably have the money, but as far as I know, they are not interested in this kind of investment."
I mean maybe trying in the sense that they won't allow literally just about anything, but nowhere near enough to make the most vulnerable people feel safe.
@stefan This is what I meant: they do have some form of moderation, it's not a free-for-all. But the money they put in is far from being enough. And I don't see them putting enough money today, tomorrow or ever for that matter.
@o_simardcasanova Right. Well, with all that said, I'm not really sure we moved anywhere with the conversation.
I still support folks who want an extra wall between them and Threads/Meta to feel safe. I do intend to continue blocking them in protest of their poor moderation.
But I do appreciate being able to discuss our differing opinions in a respectful manner.
@o_simardcasanova Last thing I'd add, I honestly don't think it's a big deal when instances break off after disagreements. I'm a big proponent of having more and smaller instances.
Add comment