I think it's going to be more important than ever that #Mastodon and the #fediverse are not centrally operated out of the US unlike almost every other social media platform out there.
@gimulnautti > US stands a good chance of becoming much more oligarchic under Trump, with politics starting to seep into how the company leaders operate
Both the GoP and the DataFarmers have been looking with approval at the close relationship between the CCP and TenCent, ByteDance, Weibo, Baidu etc. The GoP because they imagine themselves being in charge of the DataFarms, like the CCP are in charge of theirs. The DataFarmers because they know in the US it's the other way around ...
@luca I suspect the EU in general is suddenly realizing the dangers of being so reliant on the US as a defense and trading partner, and certain parts of the EU becoming emboldened to push a bit quicker down the path to fascist rule (without looking at any of the consequences). Supporting a social media platform sadly won't align with either imperative
Centralized social media was perhaps the last straw, but there were many other straws.
Respectfully, I suggest we should not look for single causes, nor singular solutions, when dealing with something as complex as human society and culture.
If we ever needed a comprehensive understanding of the myriad factors—and their interactions—which generate conflict, and drive destruction of the environment, we need it now. @Offbeatmammal @luca @Gargron
well said and agreed. especially on the last point. such that going to war on centralized social media with decentralized social media doesn't remotely solve all of our problems nor addresses all the reasons we are here. it's just something we *can* do
@benroyce @Offbeatmammal @luca I would add it’s social media that’s optimised for seeking attention, combined with the ad-driven business model that got us into this mess for real.
”Show me the incentives and I will show you the results.” -Charlie Munger
Dishonesty about the business model’s inescapable results. Ignoring the academia, who were giving the warning signs since 2014. 1990’s legislation for 2020’s technology.
@thibault I think it is a good thing that that is done on server level so people have a choice. If Mastodon wants to play a serious role in the social media landscape things are a little bit more complicated as black&white. @Gargron
But you didn't respond to Paul's point. Wasn't the whole point of Mastodon to provide an *alternative* client for an *open* network that no individual or company needs permission to use, allowing for a plurality of values and policies across instances?
By all means, pick an inherently walled technology if that's what you want, but asking Mastodon to be that seems like asking Mastodon not to be Mastodon.
I'm not invoking that argument. Freedom to instantiate and manage a server does allow a platform to (ridiculously) oppose such freedom, but of course doesn't amount to the right not to be blocked by anyone or everyone.
We seemed to be talking about the act of criticizing or opposing the policy that permits such criticism to begin with (such as a person exercising their right to free speech by vocally opposing free speech).
I agree that act is silly and obviously self-contradictory, but I don't think that means it should be an exception to protected speech. Free speech by nature permits all kinds of silly and ridiculous speech.
"We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal"
But we're talking about speech, are we not? There's no destruction of freedom without someone actually doing something.
If someone amusingly uses the open Web to argue against the open Web, others get to criticize or ignore them. If they start taking hammers to servers, others should be able to call the police.
But it shouldn't happen that people are entitled to call police because someone else is using the open Web to argue against the open Web.
I don't think that's contradictory either; yours and mine are just two responses to the same problem. Mastodon's response happens to resemble mine, while people are suggesting Eugen switch to one that resembles yours. It's possible; it's just never been Eugen's goal, and those people seem not even to understand that.
Those who oppose freedoms: we are both opposed to those who oppose freedoms
Opposition to Opposition to freedoms: i say yes that's what i am doing. you say no, that's wrong. But it's exactly what you're doing, in your own words, in your previous comment
It's almost like you're hesitant to embrace what I am saying, but if you thought about what you yourself are saying, you'll see we're saying the same thing
As for "some guy opposes freedoms but he should be allowed to talk and be argued with." But that's what bigotry is. "This race/ religion/ sex/ orientation/ etc isn't equal": yeah, nah. we just squash it
Because there's nothing to argue with
It's just dishonesty and malice. There's nothing to gain and what they are saying is done in bad faith. Nothing is achieved by engaging with it, it's just toxic crap to lose, to improve the social commons. Or have it descend into bullshit
(Thanks for staying with me. And good to meet you someplace on the Internet, by the way.)
• Do you agree with those who hold opinion x?
• Do you think people should be forbidden to express opinion x?
You're telling me I'll discover those two questions are identical if I think about it, but the difference seems obvious. Why do you think they're identical?
I think you're also wrong about bigotry implying bad faith. "Every person with this hair colour is bad at that activity"? All that's necessary for someone to believe and repeat that in *good* faith is to be taught it by a trusted adult. Eventually asking "is that really true? What is the evidence for it? Who's studied it?", can help finally dispel it.
If people aren't allowed to talk about that stuff, how are the mistaken ones going to think to question what they've learned?
that's disinfo. with bigotry it's even worse. with bigotry it isn't about ignorance, by design or honest ignorance, bigotry is about *denying the rights of others*. now we're talking freedom... and now we're talking about people who deny freedom... given freedom to deny freedom???
which destroys freedom
da fuq
"but how will they learn?"
who gives a fuck about some malicious moron?
the point is about *our* social experience, *our* freedom, to be free of toxic, destructive noise
if you say "they aren't going to learn by being blocked, they'll just hate you and be a bigger bigot"
yes, i agree
and that's on them
we all encounter static in life. most of it undeserved. but some of it, we do deserve. and we see the person was right to respond negatively, and we have to change
but some people are like "i say whatever i want, i'm always right, never wrong"
Haven't spoken to mother since 2020. I used to joke that her favorite conversation was an argument, but that wasn't accurate. An argument implies two people are saying something at some point. She monologued, & I was lucky to get a few sentences in when she'd go on and on and on.
One night I used the words "Reagan" and "Iran-Contra" in the same sentence. Her 3+ hour tirade afterward is a chunk of time I'll never get back for sure. She just wanted a bobblehead that agreed with her.
When I started having differing opinions & stopped agreeing with her just to keep the peace, she stopped speaking to me. No big loss. I'd been walking on eggshells around her ego for about 35 years and enough was enough. I'm not on social media & don't speak to my family (because they have the same mindset & I was sick of getting bombarded with it on SM), so I don't even know if she's alive. I'm sure she clapped in glee & said plenty of racist shit against Kamala when Trump won.
@benroyce @Starfia I totally understand remove organized disinfo attacks. But I think many, many people know someone in their families - otherwise decent people - who can get completely fooled by that. Are they all too far gone? There is the additional problem that people online tend to vent more because in general, there are no consequences... Which adds to the problem Edit: complement
@benroyce @Starfia I would say the question is: who is almost impossible to help, who is too "expensive" to help, and who should be helped immediately. Because when Biden won, I thought "the US can't go on like that with a 40% MAGA vote baseline. It has to go down or the next crisis could put them back in power". But I am a teacher, so I really like education. A person with psychological issue might too weak to educate others.
it is absolutely noble of you to decide to figure out the honest ignorants from the dishonest ignorants, and try to help honest ones
it's just that that cannot be the standard for online discourse
because then the ignorants push the signal to noise ratio to a breaking point, and no conversation of any value can proceed for the non-ignorant, and people leave that server, and then the server dies
@JebKFan @Starfia IMHO One needs to ask a simple question here. Is Mastodon gaining more by this than threads is? By "gaining" I mean all positive things and they need to be offset by any negative ones (for example becoming dependent) Note I consider inproving threads a negative thing.
@JebKFan blocking people on social media doesn't bar me of helping my neighbour, no matter their political opinion, when they need it. I block bigots but if said bigot happens to need help neer my home, flat tire or something, I'll gladly give a hand. @benroyce @Starfia
@switch @benroyce @Starfia Fair, but the question is how help people out of ignorance. We might need social media interaction for that. Sorry if my point wasn't clear.
the problem is, for most bigots, they are in the same scenario as: "you can't cure alcoholism until the alcoholic first agrees that they have a problem"
@benroyce > if someone uses their freedom, to destroy freedom, and we let them, then freedom itself will perish
I'm reminded of a video I saw of then-California Governor Arnie from Terminator. Who probably assumed he'd be free to give a political speech without getting egged on the way to the podium. But then he ...
(2/2) "... got an egg in the chest while walking out to give a speech during his special-election run to replace Gray Davis as governor of California in 2003."
"As the video shows, Schwarzenegger calmly shed his sport coat, and allowed security to wipe him off. He did not retaliate. Instead, he cracked some jokes (and in a longer clip, defends egging as a necessary part of free speech and vibrant political discourse): 'This guy owes me bacon now', he told reporters about the unidentified assailant."
@benroyce @Starfia @vosje62 Very logical and I don't judge you... but Germany has been banning Nazi discourse, has a crazy past, and yet the far-right is one the rise again. I'm no sure that strategy works. And to the uniformed person, we might look like the bad guys.
@benroyce @Starfia @vosje62 The question is: how do you distinguish between the honest and dishonest ignorant? Honest ignorant people are often way, way overconfident.
@benroyce @Starfia @vosje62 And here is why the problem of moderation on social media, especially when people don't want to pay to use the service. Probably more complex that rocket science, Mr Musk.
it should never be paid for. because then the free shit-tier will dominate. i mean it already does, but paying for it won't solve the problem. because 99.999% will never pay for it. the solution lies elsewhere
@benroyce @Starfia @vosje62 I meant only one, mandatory but very cheap subscription fee, otherwise you see nothing. It would be better for privacy and aggressive marketing as well... Other option: a Gov provide social media, as an alternative? People in the US will think it's like the Pravda, but if you can have an independent justice system, you should be able to have that in a state-run social media.
@benroyce @Starfia @vosje62 This is similar to what we learned on the online world. If you have a online community that is dedicated to free speech no matter what, the trolls will always destroy it.
@benroyce @Starfia @vosje62 You are already not allowed speech that incites violence or could cause harm to others. We just need to expand the term 'harm' to include 'inciting fascism'. The Germans have already modeled many of these speech-restrictions in their constitution.
Corporations should not have "free speech" for propaganda and buying candidates. The "Supreme" Court destroyed our democracy. I hate them. This is also part of the tax-exempt system where billionaires avoid paying any taxes with "charity" to political activists.
@benroyce I have no idea who is right or wrong in this. What I do know is that the right to freedom of speech does not imply the right to be heard. There are reasons I walked away from both Meta and Twitter. And all Meta and X servers are blocked on my instance as soon as they surface. @strypey @Starfia @vosje62
@Starfia I think you are right. The open structure is the basics of the system. So far there are enough 'unwanted servers' around that don't get federated. With Threads it is not different.
- Both servers and individuals can set the bounderies they want. - (that is why the options are there!)
but more importantly that subset of servers that does block all of dark fedi and threads and bluesky and gab and truth social, etc, are those servers expressing the freedom of the network the best
because you fail to comprehend the threat plutocrat, bigoted, and fascist actors represent to the freedom of the network
such opinions show how good it is that everybody can host a fediverse (not only Mastodon) server itself. So no admin can censor the network for me because he/she thinks that there is a dark fediweb e.g.
Beeing honest: i dont like it when users put pressure on admins of big instances to block other whole instances because they dont like the way they operate, or because they belong to companys like Meta etc. Its something totally different if admins block instances that are legally problematic.
If somebody does not like that fact that eg mastodon.social federates with Bluesky etc. he/she is free to block the mentionings for themselfs, switch to another Mastodon Instance with a different block policy or to run an own fediverse server.
The fediverse has that possibilities which you dont have when using x etc
From my point of view that is way better than to censor the network for all other users on the server.
a mastodonserverpact+ that says no to threads and bluesky doesn't mean you have to join it. it also doesn't mean servers aren't willing to join the + pact of their own free will. this is voluntary, coordinated group action
if it is appealing enough along with other provisions in the + pact it will grow and be successful
and, forgive my directness: who gives a shit if someone doesn't like it
The question you seemed to raise initially, which I still believe us to be discussing, is whether blocking should occur at the Mastodon server level, or whether Mastodon itself should do it.
Paul and I thought it should occur at the server level, as it indeed does.
You seemed to think Mastodon itself should do it, criticising "Mastodon not blocking Threads," and that Mastodon was "created to oppose" what you believe should always be blocked.
moderation is per server. that doesn't mean you couldn't have the same mods on multiple servers. or you could have individual mods on individual servers, but they are all in this mastonserverpact+, that binds them to a code of mod conduct
it doesn't need to be centralized top down control, in fact i think that's counterproductive
@benroyce @philip_cardella @cohentheblue @Offbeatmammal @luca Shared governance of the network, and indeed enforcing certain standards of behavior as well as sharing moderation by applying consistent standards, these were all goals of "Island Networks."
The only catch? Allowlist-based. Because you fundamentally can't enforce what other instances do in a denylist-based federation.
@benroyce @oliphant @philip_cardella @cohentheblue @Offbeatmammal @luca I vote for better user education at the front end on how to block preemptively rather than have people exposed to the hate and have to respond to it, too, and regularly endure microtraumas.
Allowlist but joining is simply a matter of checkboxung a pledge to a server pact (and then noobs are watched for being lying edgelords/ incompetent moderation/ AWOL/ etc)
I don't find that to be different from blocklist
The difference to me is the poor mods aren't slave to # fediblock and an endless litany of toxic sludge. I certainly don't think of it as a stale walled garden
< Wspomóż Petroskowo
>
Toni Aittoniemi
in reply to Eugen Rochko • • •100% agree. US stands a good chance of becoming much more oligarchic under Trump, with politics starting to seep into how the company leaders operate.
They won’t call it that obviously, because they’ll be oblivious to it. But politics it will be regardless.
They’ll call it business, but it will be politics agreed to in back rooms instead of government corridors.
Strypey
in reply to Toni Aittoniemi • • •@gimulnautti
> US stands a good chance of becoming much more oligarchic under Trump, with politics starting to seep into how the company leaders operate
Both the GoP and the DataFarmers have been looking with approval at the close relationship between the CCP and TenCent, ByteDance, Weibo, Baidu etc. The GoP because they imagine themselves being in charge of the DataFarms, like the CCP are in charge of theirs. The DataFarmers because they know in the US it's the other way around ...
@Gargron
8Petros [$ rm -rv /capitalism/*]
in reply to Toni Aittoniemi • •Always has been.
like this
Ben Royce 🇺🇦 i Toni Aittoniemi like this.
Mr. Lance E Sloan (IRL)
in reply to 8Petros [$ rm -rv /capitalism/*] • • •Luca Sironi
in reply to Eugen Rochko • • •Offbeatmammal
in reply to Luca Sironi • • •Ben Royce 🇺🇦
in reply to Offbeatmammal • • •@Offbeatmammal @luca
what got us into this mess is centralized social media
decentralized social media that is a serious player on the world's stage is the solution
however, you are correct that supporting a platform (or rather, this is a protocol) might not mean much. because
1. we are too tiny to matter now
1. if we ever could grow as big as we needed to be to matter, it might be too late
worth a try though
but we need to get very serious about it, very quick
Playing with Fediverse likes this.
Poligofsky
in reply to Ben Royce 🇺🇦 • • •@benroyce
Centralized social media was perhaps the last straw, but there were many other straws.
Respectfully, I suggest we should not look for single causes, nor singular solutions, when dealing with something as complex as human society and culture.
If we ever needed a comprehensive understanding of the myriad factors—and their interactions—which generate conflict, and drive destruction of the environment, we need it now.
@Offbeatmammal @luca @Gargron
Ben Royce 🇺🇦
in reply to Poligofsky • • •Toni Aittoniemi
in reply to Ben Royce 🇺🇦 • • •@benroyce @Offbeatmammal @luca I would add it’s social media that’s optimised for seeking attention, combined with the ad-driven business model that got us into this mess for real.
”Show me the incentives and I will show you the results.”
-Charlie Munger
Dishonesty about the business model’s inescapable results. Ignoring the academia, who were giving the warning signs since 2014. 1990’s legislation for 2020’s technology.
Ben Royce 🇺🇦 reshared this.
Ben Royce 🇺🇦
in reply to Toni Aittoniemi • • •@gimulnautti @Offbeatmammal @luca
it's broken and we need to fix it
this right here is it: the fediverse, mastodon
with the proper tweaks
thibault
in reply to Eugen Rochko • • •🦊 Paul Schoonhoven 🍉 🍋
in reply to thibault • • •If Mastodon wants to play a serious role in the social media landscape things are a little bit more complicated as black&white.
@Gargron
Ben Royce 🇺🇦
in reply to 🦊 Paul Schoonhoven 🍉 🍋 • • •@vosje62 @thibault
i think it's pretty black and white that threads is the same company whose algos got us into this mess
i think anyone who sees working with meta as benign is naive, at best
and i think mastodon not blocking threads is deeply unserious
you don't get "to play a serious role" serving the very same malice that mastodon was created to oppose
you get laughed at and then discarded
Steve Barnes
in reply to Ben Royce 🇺🇦 • • •@benroyce, @vosje62, @thibault –
But you didn't respond to Paul's point. Wasn't the whole point of Mastodon to provide an *alternative* client for an *open* network that no individual or company needs permission to use, allowing for a plurality of values and policies across instances?
By all means, pick an inherently walled technology if that's what you want, but asking Mastodon to be that seems like asking Mastodon not to be Mastodon.
Strypey reshared this.
Ben Royce 🇺🇦
in reply to Steve Barnes • • •I think at this point we're well past the "if you don't let plutocrats and nazis on your network you're a hypocrite" argument, wouldn't you agree?
Freedom doesn't mean letting actors who oppose freedom free reign- a logically sound point. There is no contradiction
Because we're talking about a social contract
I grant you as much rights as I grant myself
If you use those rights to say someone doesn't deserve rights, you've voided the contract and I owe you nothing
Ben Royce 🇺🇦 reshared this.
Steve Barnes
in reply to Ben Royce 🇺🇦 • • •@benroyce, @vosje62 –
I'm not invoking that argument. Freedom to instantiate and manage a server does allow a platform to (ridiculously) oppose such freedom, but of course doesn't amount to the right not to be blocked by anyone or everyone.
Ben Royce 🇺🇦
in reply to Steve Barnes • • •i'm confused, maybe
this point: "ridiculously"
what do you mean
do you agree that the only way social media will ever function is if you block bigotry and trolls?
is that "opposing freedom" in your view?
i could be completely wrong, i'm just not getting a good bead on what you're saying here perhaps
Steve Barnes
in reply to Ben Royce 🇺🇦 • • •@benroyce, @vosje62 –
We seemed to be talking about the act of criticizing or opposing the policy that permits such criticism to begin with (such as a person exercising their right to free speech by vocally opposing free speech).
I agree that act is silly and obviously self-contradictory, but I don't think that means it should be an exception to protected speech. Free speech by nature permits all kinds of silly and ridiculous speech.
Ben Royce 🇺🇦
in reply to Steve Barnes • • •@Starfia @vosje62
what do you think of this:
everyone is assumed the right to free speech
but if you use that speech to attack freedom, you've abrogated the right
i'm not saying anything original nor profound
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
"We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal"
logical paradox in decision-making theory
Contributors to Wikimedia projects (Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.)Ben Royce 🇺🇦 reshared this.
Ben Royce 🇺🇦
in reply to Ben Royce 🇺🇦 • • •this isn't some weird moralistic hangup
it's purely functional
if someone uses their freedom, to destroy freedom, and we let them, then freedom itself will perish
therefore you must deny freedom to those who oppose freedom. to protect freedom
there's no contradiction nor hypocrisy
Ben Royce 🇺🇦 reshared this.
Steve Barnes
in reply to Ben Royce 🇺🇦 • • •@benroyce, @vosje62 –
I fathom the reasoning.
But we're talking about speech, are we not? There's no destruction of freedom without someone actually doing something.
If someone amusingly uses the open Web to argue against the open Web, others get to criticize or ignore them. If they start taking hammers to servers, others should be able to call the police.
Steve Barnes
in reply to Steve Barnes • • •@benroyce, @vosje62 –
But it shouldn't happen that people are entitled to call police because someone else is using the open Web to argue against the open Web.
I don't think that's contradictory either; yours and mine are just two responses to the same problem. Mastodon's response happens to resemble mine, while people are suggesting Eugen switch to one that resembles yours. It's possible; it's just never been Eugen's goal, and those people seem not even to understand that.
Ben Royce 🇺🇦
in reply to Steve Barnes • • •@Starfia @vosje62
What's weird to me:
Freedoms: we agree
Those who oppose freedoms: we are both opposed to those who oppose freedoms
Opposition to Opposition to freedoms: i say yes that's what i am doing. you say no, that's wrong. But it's exactly what you're doing, in your own words, in your previous comment
It's almost like you're hesitant to embrace what I am saying, but if you thought about what you yourself are saying, you'll see we're saying the same thing
Ben Royce 🇺🇦
in reply to Ben Royce 🇺🇦 • • •@Starfia @vosje62
As for "some guy opposes freedoms but he should be allowed to talk and be argued with." But that's what bigotry is. "This race/ religion/ sex/ orientation/ etc isn't equal": yeah, nah. we just squash it
Because there's nothing to argue with
It's just dishonesty and malice. There's nothing to gain and what they are saying is done in bad faith. Nothing is achieved by engaging with it, it's just toxic crap to lose, to improve the social commons. Or have it descend into bullshit
Steve Barnes
in reply to Ben Royce 🇺🇦 • • •@benroyce –
(Thanks for staying with me. And good to meet you someplace on the Internet, by the way.)
• Do you agree with those who hold opinion x?
• Do you think people should be forbidden to express opinion x?
You're telling me I'll discover those two questions are identical if I think about it, but the difference seems obvious. Why do you think they're identical?
Steve Barnes
in reply to Steve Barnes • • •@benroyce –
I think you're also wrong about bigotry implying bad faith. "Every person with this hair colour is bad at that activity"? All that's necessary for someone to believe and repeat that in *good* faith is to be taught it by a trusted adult. Eventually asking "is that really true? What is the evidence for it? Who's studied it?", can help finally dispel it.
If people aren't allowed to talk about that stuff, how are the mistaken ones going to think to question what they've learned?
Ben Royce 🇺🇦
in reply to Steve Barnes • • •@Starfia
i'm a doctor. i'm trying to talk to other doctors
some dude: "vaccines don't work. vaccines = deep state. vaccines kill" etc
your instance is going to axe the account
because the point is to socialize
not spend your time educating morons on good faith engagement, honesty, and cognitive coherency
the issue isn't the rights of an idiot or troll to destroy social media
the issue is our rights to have a social media experience without lies and noise, some of it organized malice
Ben Royce 🇺🇦 reshared this.
Ben Royce 🇺🇦
in reply to Ben Royce 🇺🇦 • • •@Starfia
that's disinfo. with bigotry it's even worse. with bigotry it isn't about ignorance, by design or honest ignorance, bigotry is about *denying the rights of others*. now we're talking freedom... and now we're talking about people who deny freedom... given freedom to deny freedom???
which destroys freedom
da fuq
"but how will they learn?"
who gives a fuck about some malicious moron?
the point is about *our* social experience, *our* freedom, to be free of toxic, destructive noise
Ben Royce 🇺🇦 reshared this.
Ben Royce 🇺🇦
in reply to Ben Royce 🇺🇦 • • •"If people aren't allowed to talk about that stuff, how are the mistaken ones going to think to question what they've learned?"
they watch. and they read. and they listen
honesty is about looking and seeing first, then speaking
but if someone comes in spouting bigotry, they aren't listening, they don't want to learn, they've already decided to deny you your freedom
so if they shoot their mouth off and are squelched: "oh no i'm blocked. why? oh, i see, i'm wrong"
Ben Royce 🇺🇦 reshared this.
Ben Royce 🇺🇦
in reply to Ben Royce 🇺🇦 • • •@Starfia
if you say "they aren't going to learn by being blocked, they'll just hate you and be a bigger bigot"
yes, i agree
and that's on them
we all encounter static in life. most of it undeserved. but some of it, we do deserve. and we see the person was right to respond negatively, and we have to change
but some people are like "i say whatever i want, i'm always right, never wrong"
they are the problem in this world
and they never learn
and we don't have to deal with this toxic sludge
Ben Royce 🇺🇦 reshared this.
Teedi P.
in reply to Ben Royce 🇺🇦 • • •@benroyce @Starfia
Haven't spoken to mother since 2020. I used to joke that her favorite conversation was an argument, but that wasn't accurate. An argument implies two people are saying something at some point. She monologued, & I was lucky to get a few sentences in when she'd go on and on and on.
One night I used the words "Reagan" and "Iran-Contra" in the same sentence. Her 3+ hour tirade afterward is a chunk of time I'll never get back for sure. She just wanted a bobblehead that agreed with her.
When I started having differing opinions & stopped agreeing with her just to keep the peace, she stopped speaking to me. No big loss. I'd been walking on eggshells around her ego for about 35 years and enough was enough. I'm not on social media & don't speak to my family (because they have the same mindset & I was sick of getting bombarded with it on SM), so I don't even know if she's alive. I'm sure she clapped in glee & said plenty of racist shit against Kamala when Trump won.
Ben Royce 🇺🇦 reshared this.
Ben Royce 🇺🇦
in reply to Teedi P. • • •@CaffeinatedBookDragon @Starfia
so many families have been ripped apart by political agendas that are happy to wield bigotry, ignorance, and lies
JebKFan
in reply to Ben Royce 🇺🇦 • • •But I think many, many people know someone in their families - otherwise decent people - who can get completely fooled by that. Are they all too far gone? There is the additional problem that people online tend to vent more because in general, there are no consequences... Which adds to the problem Edit: complement
Ben Royce 🇺🇦
in reply to JebKFan • • •so you block, mute, ban, etc bigotry
and either:
1. the poor kid brought up under bigotry, but still possessing honesty and an ability to learn
2. the dishonest sludgemonster bigot
#1 will perhaps learn
#2 will say "libturds! WHARGARBBBL" and never learn
it is not our job to handhold bigots
they are in the remedial class of life
they have to learn on their own
it is not our job to have our entire social media experience destroyed by their need to learn the basics
Ben Royce 🇺🇦 reshared this.
JebKFan
in reply to Ben Royce 🇺🇦 • • •But I am a teacher, so I really like education. A person with psychological issue might too weak to educate others.
Ben Royce 🇺🇦
in reply to JebKFan • • •@JebKFan @Starfia
then you've described your personal goal
not the standard for social media
it is absolutely noble of you to decide to figure out the honest ignorants from the dishonest ignorants, and try to help honest ones
it's just that that cannot be the standard for online discourse
because then the ignorants push the signal to noise ratio to a breaking point, and no conversation of any value can proceed for the non-ignorant, and people leave that server, and then the server dies
Ben Royce 🇺🇦 reshared this.
Asbestos
in reply to Ben Royce 🇺🇦 • • •IMHO
One needs to ask a simple question here. Is Mastodon gaining more by this than threads is? By "gaining" I mean all positive things and they need to be offset by any negative ones (for example becoming dependent)
Note I consider inproving threads a negative thing.
Switch
in reply to JebKFan • • •JebKFan
in reply to Switch • • •Ben Royce 🇺🇦
in reply to JebKFan • • •@JebKFan @switch @Starfia
and you'll get that
when they are ready
the problem is, for most bigots, they are in the same scenario as: "you can't cure alcoholism until the alcoholic first agrees that they have a problem"
Strypey
in reply to Ben Royce 🇺🇦 • • •(1/2)
@benroyce
> if someone uses their freedom, to destroy freedom, and we let them, then freedom itself will perish
I'm reminded of a video I saw of then-California Governor Arnie from Terminator. Who probably assumed he'd be free to give a political speech without getting egged on the way to the podium. But then he ...
@Starfia @vosje62
Strypey
in reply to Strypey • • •(2/2)
"... got an egg in the chest while walking out to give a speech during his special-election run to replace Gray Davis as governor of California in 2003."
https://www.fastcompany.com/90321594/watch-arnold-schwarzeneggers-defense-of-political-eggings
Did he respond by egging the guy back, or otherwise visiting retribution on him?
Strypey
in reply to Strypey • • •(3/3)
Nope.
"As the video shows, Schwarzenegger calmly shed his sport coat, and allowed security to wipe him off. He did not retaliate. Instead, he cracked some jokes (and in a longer clip, defends egging as a necessary part of free speech and vibrant political discourse): 'This guy owes me bacon now', he told reporters about the unidentified assailant."
https://www.fastcompany.com/90321594/watch-arnold-schwarzeneggers-defense-of-political-eggings
Ben Royce 🇺🇦
in reply to Strypey • • •i don't understand what point you're trying to make
are you confusing racism, homophobia, transphobia, misogyny, etc., our real topic, with arnie getting egged?
our real topic is dehumanization. rights destruction. bigotry. freedom denial
you don't deal with that gracefully. no one can. because it's endless hate. it's not a one-off political event showing arnie has good style
you're confusing jaywalking with murder
JebKFan
in reply to Ben Royce 🇺🇦 • • •And to the uniformed person, we might look like the bad guys.
Ben Royce 🇺🇦
in reply to JebKFan • • •@JebKFan @Starfia @vosje62
who cares if a bad guy thinks we're the bad guys?
and ignorance and indecency will be with us forever
it's not like germany beat nazism and then that's settled for all of human history
ignorance and indecency is just the toxic sludge of society and it's a constant maintenance effort to contain them
forever
JebKFan
in reply to Ben Royce 🇺🇦 • • •Ben Royce 🇺🇦
in reply to JebKFan • • •@JebKFan @Starfia @vosje62
by serious and sustained effort
which most people don't have. and we can't demand they do in a social media environment
you do have that
which is noteworthy and admirable
JebKFan
in reply to Ben Royce 🇺🇦 • • •Probably more complex that rocket science, Mr Musk.
Ben Royce 🇺🇦
in reply to JebKFan • • •@JebKFan @Starfia @vosje62
it should never be paid for. because then the free shit-tier will dominate. i mean it already does, but paying for it won't solve the problem. because 99.999% will never pay for it. the solution lies elsewhere
JebKFan
in reply to Ben Royce 🇺🇦 • • •Other option: a Gov provide social media, as an alternative? People in the US will think it's like the Pravda, but if you can have an independent justice system, you should be able to have that in a state-run social media.
Ben Royce 🇺🇦
in reply to JebKFan • • •i got another idea
i see you follow me
give me a month or two
watch this space
Paul Chernoff
in reply to Ben Royce 🇺🇦 • • •Ben Royce 🇺🇦 reshared this.
Wyatt H Knott
in reply to Ben Royce 🇺🇦 • • •Ben Royce 🇺🇦 reshared this.
Kevin E. Walsh
in reply to Wyatt H Knott • • •@whknott @benroyce @Starfia @vosje62
Germany also restricts pro-Palestine and anti-Israel speech as antisemitic.
https://www.newyorker.com/news/the-weekend-essay/in-the-shadow-of-the-holocaust
Ben Royce 🇺🇦
in reply to Kevin E. Walsh • • •@whaleknives @whknott @Starfia @vosje62
there is nothing wrong with pro-Palestine speech
there is everything wrong with anti-Israel speech
the error is assuming something pro-palestinian is anti-israeli, or something pro-israeli is anti-palestinian
any speech pro-something is fine and good. any speech against a people is evil
so what we do is we have pro-palestine pro-israel speech: pro-people
the problem is the parasites ripping people apart: fuck netanyahu *and* fuck hamas
lin11c
in reply to Ben Royce 🇺🇦 • • •Lazarou Monkey Terror 🚀💙🌈
in reply to Ben Royce 🇺🇦 • • •Strypey
in reply to Ben Royce 🇺🇦 • • •@benroyce
> everyone is assumed the right to free speech
> but if you use that speech to attack freedom, you've abrogated the right
This is not a license granting permissions. It's an *inalienable* right.
Imagine if I argued;
Everyone has the freedom to grant or withdraw their labour.
But if you use that labour to attack that freedom, you've abrogated the right, so you get sold as a slave.
See the problem?
@Starfia @vosje62
Ben Royce 🇺🇦
in reply to Strypey • • •100% absolutely completely wrong
every right is a responsibility
when someone uses a right with irresponsible behavior which results in harm, they lose that right
whether explicitly, by crime and punishment
or implicitly, by pissing everyone else off and making them hate the irresponsible use of a right to abuse others
you need to learn this
this is an ironclad rule
says me?
no, says simple cause and effect
StuartB
in reply to Ben Royce 🇺🇦 • • •I have no idea who is right or wrong in this.
What I do know is that the right to freedom of speech does not imply the right to be heard.
There are reasons I walked away from both Meta and Twitter.
And all Meta and X servers are blocked on my instance as soon as they surface.
@strypey @Starfia @vosje62
Ben Royce 🇺🇦 reshared this.
🦊 Paul Schoonhoven 🍉 🍋
in reply to Steve Barnes • • •@Starfia I think you are right. The open structure is the basics of the system. So far there are enough 'unwanted servers' around that don't get federated. With Threads it is not different.
- Both servers and individuals can set the bounderies they want. -
(that is why the options are there!)
That's is how it works for all parties.
@benroyce @thibault
Ben Royce 🇺🇦
in reply to 🦊 Paul Schoonhoven 🍉 🍋 • • •but more importantly that subset of servers that does block all of dark fedi and threads and bluesky and gab and truth social, etc, are those servers expressing the freedom of the network the best
because you fail to comprehend the threat plutocrat, bigoted, and fascist actors represent to the freedom of the network
Ben Royce 🇺🇦 reshared this.
BjoernAusGE
in reply to Ben Royce 🇺🇦 • • •such opinions show how good it is that everybody can host a fediverse (not only Mastodon) server itself. So no admin can censor the network for me because he/she thinks that there is a dark fediweb e.g.
That makes the fediverse a great network.
@vosje62 @Starfia @thibault
Ben Royce 🇺🇦
in reply to BjoernAusGE • • •@bjoern @vosje62 @Starfia @thibault
agreed
someone can make any network they want
any rules they want
but if their rules suck (bigotry, etc), they're relegated to obscurity
as they should be
We simply let the pieces fall where they may, and we stop pretending bigotry and tolerance can coexist
they can't
BjoernAusGE
in reply to Ben Royce 🇺🇦 • • •Beeing honest: i dont like it when users put pressure on admins of big instances to block other whole instances because they dont like the way they operate, or because they belong to companys like Meta etc. Its something totally different if admins block instances that are legally problematic.
If somebody does not like that fact that eg mastodon.social federates with Bluesky etc. he/she is free to block the mentionings for themselfs, switch to another Mastodon Instance with a different block policy or to run an own fediverse server.
The fediverse has that possibilities which you dont have when using x etc
From my point of view that is way better than to censor the network for all other users on the server.
@vosje62 @Starfia @thibault
Ben Royce 🇺🇦
in reply to BjoernAusGE • • •@bjoern @vosje62 @Starfia @thibault
nothing you said disagrees with anything i said
a mastodonserverpact+ that says no to threads and bluesky doesn't mean you have to join it. it also doesn't mean servers aren't willing to join the + pact of their own free will. this is voluntary, coordinated group action
if it is appealing enough along with other provisions in the + pact it will grow and be successful
and, forgive my directness: who gives a shit if someone doesn't like it
it's voluntary
Steve Barnes
in reply to Ben Royce 🇺🇦 • • •@benroyce, @bjoern, @vosje62, @thibault –
Ben –
The question you seemed to raise initially, which I still believe us to be discussing, is whether blocking should occur at the Mastodon server level, or whether Mastodon itself should do it.
Paul and I thought it should occur at the server level, as it indeed does.
You seemed to think Mastodon itself should do it, criticising "Mastodon not blocking Threads," and that Mastodon was "created to oppose" what you believe should always be blocked.
Steve Barnes
in reply to Steve Barnes • • •@benroyce, @bjoern, @vosje62, @thibault –
But since then, you've repeatedly suggested server instances and individuals should do the blocking, seemingly agreeing with Paul and me after all.
So, did I misunderstand your stance on this specific point from the start?
Ben Royce 🇺🇦
in reply to Steve Barnes • • •@Starfia
yeah sorry. it was shorthand by thibault. and it fouled him up to in the miscomm too. c'est la vie:
https://mastodon.social/@benroyce/113435610459383475
Ben Royce 🇺🇦
2024-11-06 10:47:32
Emil Jacobs - Collectifission
in reply to thibault • • •@thibault
Gargron: "it's important that we're not centrally operated"
You: "ok, so make this decision, centrally, that will affect every user"
You might have missed the point here.
Ben Royce 🇺🇦
in reply to Emil Jacobs - Collectifission • • •i think thibault is only asking eugen to block threads from mastodon.social
Gary "grim" Kramlich
in reply to Eugen Rochko • • •Playing with Fediverse
in reply to Gary "grim" Kramlich • • •Ben Royce 🇺🇦
Unknown parent • • •Yes
An extension to the mastodon server pact
Representing simple good governance
No bigots (same as we have)
No plutocrats (so that's a no to threads and bluesky, something we don't have yet, but we can make)
Other foundational things
All in the service of making it so appealing no one wants to be on centralized shit
CohenTheBlue
Unknown parent • • •Mastodon Server Covenant for joinmastodon.org
joinmastodon.orgBen Royce 🇺🇦
Unknown parent • • •@philip_cardella @cohentheblue @Offbeatmammal @luca
good point, but i'd like to abstract from it:
moderation is per server. that doesn't mean you couldn't have the same mods on multiple servers. or you could have individual mods on individual servers, but they are all in this mastonserverpact+, that binds them to a code of mod conduct
it doesn't need to be centralized top down control, in fact i think that's counterproductive
it just has to be voluntary coordinated agreement
Oliphantom Menace
in reply to Ben Royce 🇺🇦 • • •@benroyce @philip_cardella @cohentheblue @Offbeatmammal @luca Shared governance of the network, and indeed enforcing certain standards of behavior as well as sharing moderation by applying consistent standards, these were all goals of "Island Networks."
The only catch? Allowlist-based. Because you fundamentally can't enforce what other instances do in a denylist-based federation.
https://writer.oliphant.social/oliphant/islands-an-opt-in-federated-network
Ben Royce 🇺🇦
in reply to Oliphantom Menace • • •i agree
all you have to do is browse # fediblock and see the dreary reality
endless whack-a-mole
it has to be allowlist. blocklist sucks
it's also not a barrier as any server could sign up and join and agree to the pact
then defederate if they prove to be incompetent/ lying edgelords intent on trolling/ go AWOL/ etc
Ben Royce 🇺🇦
Unknown parent • • •Servelan
in reply to Ben Royce 🇺🇦 • • •Ben Royce 🇺🇦
Unknown parent • • •The Ferridge
in reply to Ben Royce 🇺🇦 • • •Ben Royce 🇺🇦
in reply to The Ferridge • • •i gave you follow. give me a follow or bookmark my profile if you don't like handing out follows. i'll pin it. give me a month or two
i got a whole bunch of "wouldn't it be neat if..."
like most of us i think, about mastodon
but then we never do it because we have other priorities
but after this election, i'm making it a priority
ps: it's nothing new. i'm not claiming some amazing discovery. but it's radical for here
Ben Royce 🇺🇦
Unknown parent • • •@witchescauldron @oliphant @philip_cardella @cohentheblue @Offbeatmammal @luca
Let me ask you this:
Allowlist but joining is simply a matter of checkboxung a pledge to a server pact (and then noobs are watched for being lying edgelords/ incompetent moderation/ AWOL/ etc)
I don't find that to be different from blocklist
The difference to me is the poor mods aren't slave to # fediblock and an endless litany of toxic sludge. I certainly don't think of it as a stale walled garden
witchescauldron
in reply to Oliphantom Menace • • •@oliphant @benroyce @philip_cardella @cohentheblue @Offbeatmammal @luca
There is a difference between an #openweb path, what the Fediverse is now, and a #closedweb path, which is what quite a few people are likely unthinkingly pushing.
And yes, the actual path is more complex and messy than these, but it's a subject we need to be clear on.
#4opens #linking
Ben Royce 🇺🇦
Unknown parent • • •@witchescauldron @philip_cardella @Offbeatmammal @luca
Agreed
A more robust server pact
That's voluntary. There is no centralization. Then the servers police each other for violations
witchescauldron
Unknown parent • • •There is a project for this https://socialhub.activitypub.rocks/search?q=OGB and yes we do need native governance, not another centralised imposition,
Search results for 'OGB' - SocialHub
socialhub.activitypub.rocks