What the fuck is wrong with you? https://mastodon.social/@dansup/102391641156493980
Why are you pressuring me to block a instance from the 14k people here, when you can do that yourself?
Give control to the USERS. It's is not up to the fediverse or app developers or even to the admins to decide what they should or should not see. Do you even realize what you're doing?
And by the way I'm NOT supporting Gab. Sure, I may block them instance-wide if something really bad happens like mass spam or harassement, but until then it is *not* my call. Each user can mute entire instances for themselves and by themselves.
Aso yes, Gab is doing really shitty stuff by taking Mastodon's code and using/breaking it even though they have VC funding... But Mastodon is open-source so this will happen again... Remember Hiveway?
I like that mastodon has block/whatever controls, it's great! But LET ME CHOOSE who to block. I have tried a few instances that arbitrarily block others, and it's frustrating not seeing comments from folks on other instances that aren't aware I can't see and therefore reply. Through no fault of either myself nor them.
Stop treating users like fragile imbeciles.
There are capable adults here, that you know, exist in the real world and do just fine. We'll be fine here.
There's no reason for anybody to pre-emptively ban an instance. The only exceptions (instance posts CP/other strict liability content) also happen to be the only appropriate use cases for instance wide blocking.
People should block instances when they find a reason to do so. If someone needs an instance that attempts to shield them from all negativity, I'm sure there are a few, but thats niche
I wasn’t hiding anything, I meant what I said. Some people don’t want anything with a negative tone, period, about anything, and I don’t think those people should be on the Internet. It’s not good for them.
You, on the other hand, made the jump you accused me of. Oops.
For example, I have blocked gab, even though my instance allows it. It’s quite simple to do, and there is an analogue on twitter (blocklists).
Once you allow someone to decide for you want is the boogie man du jour be it commie in the cold war or nazi today, you put yourself in a disadvantaged position.
People of every color marching side by side
Marching across these fields where a million fascists died
You're bound to lose
You fascists are bound to lose 4x
You're bound to lose, you fascists
Are bound to lose
I'm going into this battle, take my union gun
Gonna end this world of slavery before this war is won
You're bound to lose
You fascists are bound to lose
All You Fascists Bound To Lose
@fluffy @angristan @rotawerx
The big solution is to have the list of instance bans be visible, preferably to the public (before account sign-up). In my perfect world, there’d be a matching JSON-LD schema so you can poll instances for their instance bans. Same with silences.
I’d also like to see *counts* (not lists, obvious reason) of user silences/blocks per instance.
The whole point is, Joe Blow compares instances, that’s something to compare.
Standard use case: “I mostly talk to people on instance x, y, and z. Let me make sure that won’t be a problem here before I make a new account.”
This is the same reason we should prefer silences to blocks, where feasible.
The advantage in fediverse is that people can choose what instance fits them. Users who want to be treated like fragile imbeciles will migrate to instances that make the decisions for them, such as Twitter and Facebook. And users who want to make decisions for themselves will stay with @angristan for example.
Pressuring someone else to follow your own arbitrary moral code is not ok in any way @dansup "Who's not with us is against us" is always bad.
@angristan I can only agree with that. For this very reason I have recently started to run my own instance.
@angristan Look, buddy. This isn't a small problem like drawn child pornography. This is GAB. They're NATZIS
@angristan I do agree with you, but if not up to admins at all then whats the point of having disributed instances in your mind?
- to spread the costs of hosting
- to make the network more resistant to misbehaving admins
- to avoid a single point of failure
- to let you chose where your data is stored
- to let you play around with modified versions of the server software while still being part of the same network
...and probably more.
Well things like being able to migrate freely between servers and take ytour followers and toots with you.The act of becoming federated and relays, te very need to even know a persons home server, all tese things could be addressed if we no longer cared about admins running things manually and choosing who to include
Now that I think of it, it is fine if _some_ servers do heavy instance-wide blocking. Even though I don't agree with that, I can tolerate them, and won't call their admins "bad person" as long as they can tolerate existence of neutral-carrier-like instances, and don't call those instances' admins "bad person".
But there are still be plenty of other reasons to have multiple servers and to pick one over another. They may be not so prominent in the current climate, but they're there and still having effect, even if we don't notice it.
@angristan I think they all have a pretty good idea of what they're doing. If you have a different idea of they're doing, you might want to spell it out if you want people to be aware of it.
@angristan Admins should be partly responsible for content shared and shown on their instance/platform.
It's ok to promote freedom of speech but one should also have the guts to stand up for those believes and face whatever consequences it might bring forth like the infamous Gab and 4chan instead of hiding behind the "it's just a platform" excuse like facebook, twitter or reddit.
@Vipsu @angristan It has long been known that admins in the fediverse do have legal liability for the content they host, and the consequences of that can vary depending upon jurisdictions. For example, hosting hate speech or certain kinds of political imagery in EU countries may be against local laws. We havn't seen any legal cases yet, but that's presumably because the fediverse isn't on the radar of the politicians because it hasn't been big enough. That situation may change in the next few years.
But even today they conveniently hide behind "just a platform" excuse and switch to "publisher" when convenient for them in the court rooms.
@angristan actually it IS up to the users and admins to decide what they should and should not see.
That's why there are multiple feds, all with different rules that you AGREED to when you became part of that fed.
To join one and complain about the rules you sought out and agreed to is very naive and baseless.
I would go as far as to just say outright stupid but I'm trying to be civil.
@Wetrix yes it is up to both. But some decide to let the users choose, because they consider them smart enough to make their own choices
@angristan no, they do not. Every fed has rules when you join.
So when those rules are enforced that's a baseless stance.
The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!