@raf Not sure it's wise to generalize 'the Fediverse' given how it works; people on well moderated instances will barely see antisemites or other scum since their instances (that allow such stuff) get banned rather quickly. That's probably also why the...
-
ืจืึทืฃ ๐ฃreplied to Natasha Nox ๐บ๐ฆ๐ต๐ธ last edited by
People have been making statements like this since 2017. The argument effectively puts the onus on those being harassed to protect themselves and not create any accountability measures against those doing the harassing.
Any solution to this problem can't put the majority of the work on the people with the least resources and support.
I recommend https://www.techpolicy.press/the-whiteness-of-mastodon/ as further reading
-
Natasha Nox ๐บ๐ฆ๐ต๐ธreplied to ืจืึทืฃ ๐ฃ last edited by
@raf The newer moderation tools I mentioned are made by many people across the community though, meaning (also) by white, non-jewish people.
Regarding accountability: outside of holding local instance admins and mods accountable really the best thing you (and the mods / admins) can do is ban connections and instances that ain't properly moderated and tell the police if there's illegal stuff going on. Or do you have some idea how to design the network in a better way?
-
ืจืึทืฃ ๐ฃreplied to Natasha Nox ๐บ๐ฆ๐ต๐ธ last edited by
Better moderation tools will only ever be a part of the solution. And if this is really the best the platform can do for accountability, the platform deserves to die and be replaced with one with better ways to mitigate harassment and abuse.
I think we can do better, but more importantly I want other people to believe it too
-
Natasha Nox ๐บ๐ฆ๐ต๐ธreplied to ืจืึทืฃ ๐ฃ last edited by
@raf The question is how? The only "super authority" able to enforce accountability across communities are the states, and given where the world currently moves to I wouldn't count on that.
However neither would a private super-authority be trustworthy as we can see with all the corporate "social" media platforms.
I'd like to see accountability for being a total dick online as well, however demanding too much of it inevitably leads to authoritarianism.
Fedi ain't perfect, but the best we got.
-
ืจืึทืฃ ๐ฃreplied to Natasha Nox ๐บ๐ฆ๐ต๐ธ last edited by
I think we should get serious about governance and minimal acceptable standards across instances. Not every instance needs to subscribe to those standards but if they do they should be held accountable to them more broadly. Users can then have a more predictable experience since they know the server has committed to and expected to uphold those standards.
-
Natasha Nox ๐บ๐ฆ๐ต๐ธreplied to ืจืึทืฃ ๐ฃ last edited by
@raf If I remember correctly something similar was an idea brought up for the new mod tools (given they'd include federation of moderation information). Something across the lines of certain instances connecting each other in a way the moderation decisions of one either get applied or actively encouraged on the others.
However I don't know if the idea also was about making these "trust levels" visible to everyone in some way or where the idea is by now. It seemed very sensible though. -
Beckyreplied to Natasha Nox ๐บ๐ฆ๐ต๐ธ last edited by
-
Natasha Nox ๐บ๐ฆ๐ต๐ธreplied to Becky last edited by [email protected]
@RenewedRebecca @raf To my knowledge it isn't, but more (at a minimum) like shared governance between servers that share the same values. I could be wrong here though, I'm not working on it myself but merely hearing about it occasionally.
-
Beckyreplied to Natasha Nox ๐บ๐ฆ๐ต๐ธ last edited by
@Natanox @raf Thatโs the thing thoughโฆ. What does shared governance ultimately do? Everything Iโve seen so far has revolved around new ways of sharing server-level block lists. (I understand that you may not be able to answer that.)
One feature that BlueSky has that I think we should copy here is community-based moderation. Actual users can maintain and share lists of people, not servers that should be avoided. It works fairly well, too.
Ultimately, the server ban hammer has to be there, but I donโt think the current process works well to deal with the situation where you have one problematic dude on dot social who isnโt getting dealt with there.
-
Natasha Nox ๐บ๐ฆ๐ต๐ธreplied to Becky last edited by
@RenewedRebecca @raf That's a really nice idea I'd wholeheartedly support, as long as any block added to the list either comes up as recommendation and shown in everyone's notification bar, or if blocks get shared immediately at least a potential following gets reinstated should I personally choose to revoke it.
-
Natasha Nox ๐บ๐ฆ๐ต๐ธreplied to Natasha Nox ๐บ๐ฆ๐ต๐ธ last edited by
@RenewedRebecca @raf I agree things need to be done, and that f.e. the Mastodon gGmbH ain't able doing so in a timely fashion. Still, having the Fedi flourish despite the power projected by our Silicon Valley overlords is a huge accomplishment. It's just very unfortunate how good things take time, especially since everyone's preoccupied with securing their own life. Investor-driven networks like Bluesky will always be faster, however they'll also eventually enshittificate to maximize profit.
-
Beckyreplied to Natasha Nox ๐บ๐ฆ๐ต๐ธ last edited by
@Natanox @raf The way it works there, you as a user have to subscribe to a blocklist, and you can always unblock someone (for yourself) who gets added to it.
There are also multiple blocklists. So, for example, I subscribe to the lists that blocks right-wing grifters, TERFs, and just overall creepy guys.
Now, some people like having the grifters around so they can dunk/argue with them. I donโt want to ever see them, so thatโs why I subscribe to the blocklist.
The point is, that community-based moderation takes a load off of the server admins and allows each community to protect itself. This is great if you happen to run into an admin who โjust doesnโt see any racismโ, for example.
-
Natasha Nox ๐บ๐ฆ๐ต๐ธreplied to Becky last edited by
@RenewedRebecca @raf If the newly blocked person used to follow you or vice versa, do those connection then get reinstated?
-
I think these are all great ideas, and importantly more social conventions than technical solutions. The software supports this workflow right now.
When I say governance I also mean multiple servers agreeing to coordinate and communicate. Not just on blocks or mutes but also policies around scraping or engaging with third party services.
-
Natasha Nox ๐บ๐ฆ๐ต๐ธreplied to ืจืึทืฃ ๐ฃ last edited by
@raf @RenewedRebecca Good point. Modern culture revolves way too much around "solving" everything with technology and pushing "innovation" to problems we either already solved before or absolutely do not need tech to be solved.
Those community lists would indeed also be able to help admins. I've seen a lot of instances going down in the last year, not just because of costs but simply admins and mods burning out.
-
always tiredreplied to Natasha Nox ๐บ๐ฆ๐ต๐ธ last edited by
-
always tiredreplied to Natasha Nox ๐บ๐ฆ๐ต๐ธ last edited by
@Natanox @RenewedRebecca @raf Yes. Blocks don't break follows either way over there. There's no way to force unfollow a follower at all.
