So after wading into the debate yesterday based on an article written by @ploum (and posted by @dangillmor), and the larger #fedipact controversy, I decided to share a slightly more coherent version of my thoughts. I still think unnecessary #gatekeeping and preemptive #bans suck and will cause a helluva lot more damage to the protocol than Meta likely will, but as always, hope others who differ in their thoughts will engage in some healthy debate, and not just resort to calling me a troll for having a different opinion than them.
@privacat I share your concerns about gatekeeping but over time I've learned the hard way that sometimes you need to block a whole server before they've done anything to your members.
Generally this is done by information sharing between mods and admins of various servers.
When a server, even if it has a lot of people who are nice, has a history of tolerating hate, the best thing to do for your members online safety is to block it.
6 months ago - decided to try Mastodon, was totally fine with picking a server, but picked a largish one because I wasn't sure what small, tightly-focused server etiquette was (b/c, you know, totally new user)
6 days ago - have to decide if I want to move again because a significant number of people I follow might be on instances that cut off the one I'm on b/c it might federate w/ whatever Meta cooks up
@dpnash@privacat@ploum@dangillmor I’d let this settle down before moving anywhere. A lot of people on those servers might move because they want to follow you…
For whatever it's worth, I'm a mod on a server that's doing the pre-emptive blocking of Facebook and we don't have any intention of blocking servers just because they don't want to.
I've been following the broader conversation and haven't seen anyone planning to do that at the server level yet.
> Still, I think a block-first-ask-questions-later approach is a bad idea, and I wonder if it will do anything other than drive users away who aren’t interested in wading through these pitched battles.
…is worth asking. But jumping to conclusions like:
> [point of blocking Meta is] To ensure that only the ‘right people’ are part of the community. Screw the unwashed masses.
@privacat the question is about the realities of what defederation means in real, practical terms. This can be somewhat objectively argued about.
The "gatekeeping" conclusion makes claims about intent of those making that decision. It's similar to how some (few!) on the "defederate Meta" side of this debate jump to a conclusion that any fedi admin that does not sign the Pact has to be "paid off" by Meta.
Jumping to such conclusions only makes reasoned conversation hard.
@privacat I'll admit, it doesn't feel like there is any meaningful debate possible when you've already poisoned the well by positioning disagreement as being gatekeeping and an ad hominem attack against you.
Regardless, I disagree categorically that wanting a fediverse that is safe from malicious actors like Facebook is "elitist." It honestly seems really dystopian to describe a call for safety and agency as "elitist."
@xgranade The only thing I positioned as an ad hominem attack is the fact that I was called a troll for having a different opinion.
As for poisoning the well, if you don't think it's gatekeeping what would you characterise it as if you were in disagreement with that position (I get that if you're pro-blocking Facebook, you assume it's on the side of the angels, but pretend you had to argue my side).
I dont' think I hate safety or agency - it's why I have zero problem with individual admins blocking FB/P92. I am mostly concerned with fallout effects if major instances go further and punish others for not doing the same and pre-emptive banning without any real evidence.
@privacat I'll be honest, I don't know how to reconcile "I don't think I hate safety or agency" with your saying "screw you" to "People joining the Fediverse are those looking for freedom. If people are not ready or are not looking for freedom, that’s fine."
Similarly, I don't know how to reconcile "it's why I have zero problem with individual admins blocking FB/P92" with "Still, I think a block-first-ask-questions-later approach is a bad idea."
@privacat It feels like you're walking your own claims back in the face of criticism, which is cool — changing one's mind isn't a bad thing. At the same time, it can also be done in bad faith, as is being done by others on the antipact side of discourse.
@xgranade
You have difficulty reconciling because you're missing the context surrounding the original. And most of my explanations in the comment threads.
@privacat@ploum@dangillmor Meta's arrival will inevitably split and undermine the fedi, which is in Meta's interests.
Regardless, many always underestimate the damage a corporation can do, despite repeated precedents and evidence of past malicious practice, until it is too late.
I do disagree, but that's mainly because I left Facebook. Which I did giving a full 6 month warning, with my email address and my mastodon handle.
When I first came on the Fediverse, the learning curve was steep. It's better now. My point of view is that I think it depends on what you aim for on this network. For quite a few people on here, blocking for safety has been learned the hard way.
@privacat@ploum@dangillmor It's why when I suggested to my family to try it, I found an instance and found some guides. Although that's at the individual level.
At Scale it's a lot harder to on-board.
But I think it will come down to individual choice, including weither folk stay on Mastodon or go elsewhere for their next social network.
For some of us this is like our 3 or 4 network. The first one you were on, always has the emotional punch of leaving.
@avuko@privacat@ploum I think the thing we always need to remember is that most of the time there's a person on here. Even the admins are people not gods.
Folks are brilliant but we're also fallible. It's often hard in the heat of the moment to step back, take a breath. Then see if you can see where an opposing view is coming from.
Every person has the right to decide where they want to end up on here.
@onepict@privacat@ploum Great post! Yeah, I personally think people should choose what’s best for them.
I run 5 solo instances (well, 3 actually as the other two are blogs), & I do not intend to block #Threads (or whatever #Meta or #Instagram calls it) when it launches.
I am wondering is if people will end up blocking instances who do not block Threads. I think that is what people in the #Fediverse are worried about right now.
Because it will be political, but some of that will also be for personal safety. We already have blocklists for instances.
So some folks will either implement them on a personal level or chose instances that do. Some folk will want to interact with the wider network. It will depend on how you want to use it.
@darnell@privacat@ploum But I don't think you can separate politics from tech. It's a part of humanity.
For some folks on here, particularly marginalised folks their very existence is political, being far from the norm or the perceived status quo. Or the dominant socio economic culture. I think this essay by @nebulos explains the situation quite well.
@onepict@privacat@ploum@nebulos Actually it is more or less just politics. Tech is merely a tool to create change. Politics are ideologies expressed publicly.
To me P92 is an attempt to capture those twitter users left, as well as suggest to Instagram and Facebook users to try it out. To have that one network or as large a piece of that pie as possible.
Thanks for the response, and your thoughts. I will admit, I don't agree with a lot of it, but I do get where you're coming from. I think there's some degree of fractal complexity in these systems that many miss (I wrote about the problem of fractal complexity here: https://careylening.substack.com/p/test-post-thing).
Some disclosures: I (briefly) worked for Meta in 2018-2019, when they were trying to rehabilitate themselves post CA/pre-GDPR. I naively thought I could change some of the particularly odious bad behaviors and practices, and it only took me a few months to realize that this was about as effective as me trying to sprout wings and fly.
Part of the reason is that Meta isn't a monolith anymore; it's a messy, fragmented clown car of a system, a pile-on of various hacks, experiments, deprecated-but-not-yet-deprecated code, forgotten interconnections, and abandoned promo endeavors and efforts. Nobody at Meta knows what data Meta has (and I mean this very literally - they literally cannot comply with a DSAR effectively because they have no clue about what their code is actually tracking, or at least that was the case in 2019).
It's the equivalent of assuming there's a single world order who controls the "System". This shit is so big that while there might be people who know more, nobody (or no single team) knows everything, or even most things. Assuming that conscious efforts to destroy the AP/Fedi are being made by some shadowy leadership group is ascribing WAY too much intelligence and foresight to a group of people who probably thought it would just be cool if they could get on this AP/fedi bandwagon and siphon away Twitter users.
And like, really, I think that's what the main end-goal is. To siphon away Twitter users by showing that Threads will be more like the social network people had on Twitter, back when everyone was on Twitter. FB knows it can't achieve that on its own, so they're going to coopt whatever system might give them an edge.
You hinted at this in a later comment, and I think it's the most realistic basis for any of the P92 efforts. Or, even more cynically: A few people at Meta thought they could get a promo from this.
@privacat@ploum I think a lot of social media is held together with string and hope. Much like we found out twitter was.
People are aware of just how we are entrenched in capitalism. It's why if you want a Linux system you end up going to specific specialist or repurposing old machines.
You can't pop down to a supermarket or pc world and pick up ubuntu.
The fediverse has fractured and will fracture. Again and again. All of this is just a sideshow.
"Meta isn't a monolith anymore; it's a messy, fragmented clown car of a system […] Nobody at Meta knows what data Meta has"
Everybody having worked in the industry knows perfectly well that this is the case for every single company bigger than 50 employees. Entropy always win.
And that’s why we should fight corporations: those are soulless robot that nobody control anymore (It’s not new, Steinbeck already told us about this in The Grapes of Wrath")
@ploum@onepict I mean, expand that to logical conclusions: What phone do you use? Was it created by a corporation? What brand of computer do you own? What car do you drive or bike do you own? What food do you buy, what news do you read ... I could go on.
If they're all soulless robots, why aren't you out there living off the land, instead of online? Why support any of them if they're all entities that "nobody control(s) anymore" ?
@privacat@onepict : that’s the very point why I use an #ungoogled phone, why I’m trying to be part of the #permacomputing community, why I’m arguing for #digitalminimalism, why I’m trying to shop as local as I can and to support small creators/local companies.
Your argument is a bit like the naive: "You feel the world is bad yet you live in the world, duh!"
Yet you argue than when we manage to create a small space without #Meta, we should welcome their invasion.
@ploum@onepict When I see generalizations like "We should fight corporations" or "We should be honest and ensure people join the Fediverse because they share some of the values behind it" uncritically mentioned without any nuance, I respond with the same lack-of-nuance generalizations.
Asserting that it's all bad, or that only the right people should join (those that share 'the values behind' the Metaverse' (without any articulation about what those might be!) isn't any more helpful.
@privacat@ploum well I think that's the nature of the medium we're on.
Plus sometimes there is the language barrier. Some of those messages are a call out to find other folks.
But some people are talking to an existing audience and have material elsewhere detailing their arguments. I've been on here in some form since 2017. Sometimes there's nuance sometimes not, and I think it depends on what the tooter feels comfortable tooting.
@privacat@onepict : we should fight abusive corporations. Yes. We should fight too big corporations. Yes. This is not a generalization, it is a widely documented problem studied by academia. It’s called "monopolies". You can read more about it from David Dayen or Cory Doctorow.
Is Meta doing more bad than good? I find it hard to not answer "yes". Is meta a systemic problem that should be fought. For most scholars, the answer is yes.
Those are the basic premises on which we seems to disagree
@privacat also, these fedi spaces are not public infrastructure. They are bigger and smaller communities that have some common values (even if they can't clearly describe them).
Meta is showing up to a house party with a few busloads of people. Some might be great folk. Some might be terrible. We know what Meta's moderation track record is…
How can anyone be surprised that the people running a small house party are not keen on letting a few buses of people in?
@privacat if I don't let any random person in during my house party, is that "gatekeeping"? Or is this just being a responsible host to those who attend?
If I hear that somebody is organizing a bunch of buses of party-goers to come to the neighborhood during my house party, is putting up a sign "this is an invite-only house party, sorry" also "gatekeeping"?
@ploum@onepict We only disagree because you mischaracterize my argument. shrug You never said 'too big' or 'abusive' -- you said 'corporations' and then dismissively told me to read folks I've in fact, already read. There's not much more to discuss here.
@privacat@ploum Corporations by their very nature are set up avoid liability to their owners. It also as you've pointed out, makes it very hard even within a corporation to audit what goes where. Partly because it is organic. The personality and perception of the founders still will affect how people see it.
But I think our very different backgrounds come into this as well. I've worked for Corporations in a different industry.
We can discuss, try to empathise, and then agree to disagree.
But if you believe that Meta should be considered as an entity like many others and give the benefits of the doubt, then you simply didn’t understood the debate at all.
The question is: "considering Meta is an abusive company, should the fediverse block it preemptively or not?" (on which, I’ve no answer TBH).
But if you don’t consider Meta as problematic (which is fine, we simply disagree), there’s of course no debate to have.
@ploum@onepict These are not mutually exclusive conditions. Surprisingly, one can consider meta problematic, and still find the broad-brush approach (preemptive banning) to be a bad one.
You assuming that because I don't agree, that I am pro FB, or pro big corporations, don't know what a corporation is, don't like freedom, etc., means there's no room for debate, nuance, or understanding here.
That's a very boring conversation to engage in, so we'll just have to disagree.
Add comment