Well, I got my first white supremacist reply from the fediverse after posting an article about Elon from Flipboard.
-
Mike McCuereplied to Karl Voit :emacs: :orgmode: on last edited by
@publicvoit It's a tough one. I can see how sometimes people or instances could get blocked for reasons that they should be able to address. This particular instance is not like that. They're straight up nazis and should be blocked. There's no perfect solution but at least it's a lot better than X.com
-
@aral ok. flipboard.social and flipboard.com are blocking noauthority.social #fediblock for hate speech and calls for violence.
-
Çağan Mert İŞLEKreplied to The Nexus of Privacy on last edited by
@thenexusofprivacy @Seirdy @mike @tchambers @greg @stux @Gargron
I just learned about FediBlock hashtag. However this is not perfect as sometimes instance admins can choose to stay silent about a block to not take an unnecessary attention.
There is lots of blocklists out there and, as in the nature of the humans, a mistake can be done by a maintainer.
It is the best idea to keep things inside a forum-like place just for admins. If the people of fediverse give me the honor to be the one to build it, I am probably going to let admins conenct via #theprotocols or Mastodon API, so people will be able to host their own UI with the same content.
-
@islekcaganmert @thenexusofprivacy @mike @greg In addition to the hashtag there’s a handful of admin chatrooms, forums like Fediseer, community blocklists/receipt archives like mine (linked upthread), blocklist syndication projects like FediBlockHole, and upcoming blocklist subscription projects like FediCheck.
Admins can announce blocks on FediSeer and the FediBlock hashtag, push their blocks through consensus lists, have their blocks pulled by syndication tools like FediBlockHole, and reference receipt archives. What new thing are you proposing, and how will it “solve” the issue of “instance admins can choose to stay silent about a block to not take an unnecessary attention”?
-
@mike It also shows a weakness of the fediverse. It's a great 'cancel machine' if there are no rules for this. It can take just 2 minutes to cancel a group of people unjustified.
-
@Seirdy @greg @mike @thenexusofprivacy maybe it can be all tools in one place, simplified. Also I think it can be better if there is a place admins can post about administration and create polls to decide together on kicking an instance together. This can be done by an approach very alike to groups of ActivityPub, a website to view timeline of an account and able to post polls and notes (mentioned-only) with automention of this account via the same website using Mastodon API and TheProtocols.
Just like United Nations but for ActivityPub. Democratically suggest an action to all member instances.
-
@islekcaganmert @greg @mike @thenexusofprivacy Such a coalition has been tried. It was called UFoI. It crashed and burned.
Admin groups that get too big generally end up dissolving in a fit of controversy, infighting, scandals, and/or irreconcilable differences.
The technology is the easy part. Getting people to actually work together is what’s impossible. I’d argue that collaboration to such a degree is unnecessary; admins are capable of deciding whether or not to defederate a given instance or block a given user without setting up a poll, if presented with the relevant receipts. Public instances can use consensus lists as starting points or baselines, but they should forge their own paths from there.
Instead of asserting that the lack of a new platform is what’s missing from the cirrent landscape, I recommend figuring out where the current solutions fall short according to existing admins from different backgrounds and instance sizes. You’ll likely find that the issue is less a lack of tooling, and more a lack of documentation about said tools.
-
@avlap2 @mike There can't be rules for cancelling. Give the users the power to block whatever or whoever they want but never do it for others. It is as simple as that. I am pretty sure that Mastodon do not need a council for truth or moral superiority to control the flow of information. Everybody is entitled to do it for themeselves.
-
@valis01 @avlap2 @mike You’re acting as though you have a right to access anything and everything on here: you don’t. This is an open source platform that is a mix of nonprofit and volunteer/donation based users. If you don’t agree to the rules of your instance, you can contact the admin to suggest clarifications or additions, but if you want an instance with blackjack and hookers then make your own.
-
@mike as the admin of a small instance, I definitely feel the need for better tools to allow me to more easily incorporate information like that into my instance's block list without being overwhelmed by day to day reports.
There's a great deal of power for good in actions like yours. We need to be able to harness that across the fediverse.
-
we need a way to all share what we saw, how we responded and why. as much transparency as possible without violating other values. better than blocklists imo.
noauthority.social is basically the same people that were on noagendasocial.com (my first server), brought together as fans of the No Agenda podcast, managed by eriner. I don't think it's a server worth blocking cause they aren't a hub for intentional harassers, but they are very edgelord and don't want to police anyone.
-
@WhiteCatTamer @valis01 @avlap2 you’re both right. Moderation is super hard and it can have unintended consequences when done poorly. But it still needs to be done because no moderation gets you X.
One thing I should have been clear about is that I was acting as both a user and an instance owner. We have clear rules on Flipboard’s instance that if violated get you blocked. Acting like a nazi is one of them. That user can still go to other instances. If those instance owners are clearly ok with nazi behavior then there’s a good chance everyone on that instance will ultimately get blocked.
Blocking everyone on one instance from everyone on another is not to be taken lightly and is an instance owner decision. It’s the ultimate moderation weapon and shouldn’t be used to settle scores, etc it should be used against instances that are specifically about promoting hate speech, scams, CSAM and violence. When used properly, instance to instance blocking has been incredibly effective. In this case being able block an instance that is clearly run by a white supremacist for white supremacists is a no brainer to help provide users on Flipboard’s instance with a more positive experience free from harassment by nazis.
-
@mike @valis01 @avlap2 Thank you. I appreciate that you rightly see it as a weighty decision but one that must be made. Placing the onus upon the users to screen out trolls and honest shitheads that can make new accounts within seconds makes Mastodon no better than Bluesky and puts marginalized people at unique risk; blocking instances that take technical know-how and money to run keeps these users safe and presents a greater barrier to repeat issues.
-
@wjmaggos @jonquass I get that there are often grey areas with moderation. But this one is as black and white as it gets. This particular instance *owner* is calling for death of politicians, denying the holocaust ever happened, promoting hateful conspiracies and encouraging all of his users on his instance to do the same. And they are certainly harassing users on other instances. Blocking this instance is an obvious decision for Flipboard. I understand not all other instance owners will decide to block. That’s the beauty of the fediverse. Each instance can decide what kind of community it wants to host and then users can decide if they want to join or leave that community.
-
-
Mike McCuereplied to Chris Alemany🇺🇦🇨🇦🇪🇸 on last edited by
@chris @avlap2 I’m referring to the policy each instance communicates when you join it. On Flipboard’s instance we don’t allow CSAM and death threats for example. We do this to set the norms for the community our users want to join. If you break those rules you get blocked. Users who want to join a community of no rules and total freedom can join instances that operate that way. Or they can just join X.
-
Mike McCuereplied to Chris Alemany🇺🇦🇨🇦🇪🇸 on last edited by
-
Chris Alemany🇺🇦🇨🇦🇪🇸replied to Mike McCue on last edited by [email protected]
@mike @avlap2 I totally agree with that approach. I see the "freedom" on the Fediverse being instance based, rather than individual. Instances are free to have their own policies, or gather into groups with common policies and ideals. In that way moderation achieves consistency rather than trying to create a global set of "rules" for an individual.
-
