A toot on the nature of #fediverse and how the decentralised structure shapes #etiquette.
Premise:
As it's naive to think any new instance *will* have almost the exact same rules as the one you are on (or are admin for); so it is naive to think they *should* have broadly compatible rules.
Question:
Thus when deciding should another instance be ''silenced', should it be normal (the model of etiquette) for instance admin/mod to make public a list of their silenced instances?
& Why/Why not?
These are good points.
My issue is whether in the second case the premise should be 'illegal in the jurisdiction of the instance, as we need to obey the law to run' OR whether the admin should, out of etiquette, be given cart blanche to judge additional content as 'unacceptable' and silence without obligation to explain.
Personally, I see value in the second, there's already a countermeasure to prevent admin over-censorship: users can leave to other instances. No captive audiences.
@Barcode Regarding your final point:
Silencing and blocking is largely invisible to the users of an instance. You can't take action against a policy you don't agree with if you aren't aware of it in the first place. This is to a large degree exactly why transparency matters in this case.
I'm surprised I hadn't given more thought to this. Especially considering how many instances of 'THEY'RE DOING WHAT?' social media companies have been doing regarding traffic shaping, social experiments and filter bubbles.
With this said... if the only enforcement on an admin to not do secretive stuff is their conscience, doesn't etiquette just encourage users to trust in a system without enforcers of etiquette?
Is this 2 different ways of dealing with the same blind trust problem?
@Barcode Well, admin trust isn't binary.
I may trust an admin to not deliberately harm me without trusting they've given things much thought and without trusting them to be competent sysadmins... or any other combination of skills and behaviours.
An admin who communicates well and is transparent is at least signalling that they've given these issues some thought and is making an effort.
They might still be liars, but short of running an instance myself that's a chance I always have to take.
In this regard I think I disagree. When I consider if I trust someone, it's a very y/n thing with me, & that trust determines whether I'll continue with em.
(I admit it might be I've a flawed model of trust.)
There might be decrees of suspicion I have that'd amp up my efforts to check they're not doing anything shady.
Regarding comms and signalling, that's helpful but can only be an indication of something is wrong, not things are well. No talk = problem, talk != no problem.
100% agree with the stance on either run an instance or take a chance.
Yep, you can only trust others so much in many scenarios,
And barcode will probably dislike another one of these, but a lesson from spreadsheets in space (EvE Online) : "Don't risk what you can't afford to lose " seems to be something that fits into deciding how much and what to trust others with.
Actually that's something I'm entirely on board with.
Taleb wrote in one of his books that you can't forecast the payoff of playing Russian Roullette for $1,000,000 because it's NOT as simple as ~83%: $1M, ~17%: $0
You can't rationally forecast anything that has an effect on survival as there're no irrational thing you can do that increases the chances of survival. Rational roughly means ups survival odds.
(EvE is a glorious storytelling saga. EvE players are fun company)
@Barcode
@HerraBRE one approach is to use technology to leverage - e.g. if the software can provide a moderation log to users! The "illegal content" can be taken care of as "Admin blocked instance at (redacted) - illegal content"
Extend that to "Admin blocked (redacted)@mastodon.social - repeated abuse" to protect some level of offender privacy
@Barcode yes, in the interest of transparency. to foster a community requires openness with your members, so that they can trust you. most instances I come across publish their lists in /about/more
@Barcode
It goes a few ways, it's nice to know what instances are blocked as a user so you know what is totally locked or partially locked out when on that instance, but isn't totally necessary.
Yes it's very naive to believe all instances should have compatible rules, but those who fail to realize that they have zero control unless they own it themselves.
@Barcode
On the other hand, it's bad for the community because public blocklists can be used to portray another instance as a cruel and vile place, even if all it took was just one string of posts by a single person of said instance (hell, even if that person is normally ok unless you decide to be vile to them first *hint hint*)
@Barcode
I do want to touch a little more of the 'when' it's needed in terms of #etiquette as a mod or admin. Unless you can guarantee that the Entirety of the server's population is incompatible (not just their rules, since that's the worst they can get, not their best they can get) then the entire server shouldn't be silenced or blocked. Only block on a per individual basis. Pick out the bad apples from the good as you will.
It seems to me that this problem almost leans into a software/hardware req. problem:
If mastodon/pleroma were light enough to run on an early rasp. pi, it'd change the ratio of admins/users and the ratio of those paying for servers/free users.
Whether something is *yours* and where you pay *your* money changes behaviour (eg 'drive it like a rental').
So I think there's a link between less heavy-handed inter-instance moderatio, lighter software/running costs, & less need to 'trust'.
@Barcode
Yep. That being said the actual logistics aren't too bad. A 10-20 USD per month for a vps with enough ram and maybe a couple gig swap file as overflow seems to be enough for a small instance for mastadon (so long as the CPU allotment doesn't peg at 100%) and maybe up to 20 or 30 per year for a domain registration and you're golden until storage becomes an issue.
@Barcode
Really hoping to get pleroma up and running at some point, would definitely be easier to run on my VPS here.
This is real helpful. Thanks Fexel. Hope cooler heads prevail.
@Barcode
Usually they do. Those who can't typically end up losing their minds. Though the overperscription of anxiety and antidepressants certainly isn't helping either.
Can definitely thank in part social media and mass hysteria on that one.
Yep. The nuance gets lost but people remember the tarnished name.
Plus it just changes the destructive and malicious tactics, it doesn't actually slow or reduce destruction or malice (the phenomenon I think is called the cry-bully?).
I'm of the opinion public block lists can be thrown around like statistics without logic.
@Barcode
Yes it's called cry-bullying. I'm interested in it in part because yiff.rocks is now on one such blocklist simply because certain (special snowflakes?) Can't handle the vitriol they receive after they just dished it out and invited that behavior.
I hope such nonsense gets seen for what it is.
I've tooted before about feeling 'I'm doing it wrong unless I run my own instance' & disapproval of the normalisation of CWs for politics. And while I accept the mastodon.social rules (I'm not an ingrate) while I'm on there, seeing how a different instance with a different outlook on free speech could be so unobjectionably silenced is disheartening.
I don't think the #fediverse works as intended if we're all in the same filter bubble.
@Barcode
That's the whole reason why I run this instance. I don't agree with the rules of most of the large instances. Guess you could say I'm "fighting the man" ๐คฃ
It's no holds barred here except legality, CWing NSFW content, and not being able to handle what you dish out.
@Barcode
I did have 'be civil' but between it being vague and easy to be misconstrued by crybullies, I figured it would be better off to say that last stipulation i mentioned.
@Barcode
It's because I expect people to not have bad intentions all the time. To do so... Well you can see the drama with yiff.rocks being the new chewing bone of the crybullies.
@Barcode
I grew up in that environment, was taught in that environment, and was part of the lucky few who managed to see through the bullshit they pushed in school.
@Barcode
Some say I'm narcissistic because of that, thinking it's a bragging right to have a seemingly uncanny ability to cut through the BS. All it takes is a healthy level of skepticism, and a willingness to inquire. But most of the SocJus crowd I've interacted with would rather slap a block on my face for even daring to ask the question "why" and explain reality from outside of their bubble.
@Barcode
If they enterain the thought, it's pretty quick to end in them not being able to think their way out of it and then start spouting off vitriol because they're too scared, so invested in not losing to what they think is their enemy.
I think 'narcissism' is something that gets thrown around rather a lot as an ad hominem.
I don't deny that there's such a thing. But it's a world of difference hearing the description from somebody who had to study & pass tests (with failure conditions) & someone with none of the above combined with hurt feelings and a will to shoot the messenger.
It's just a science-sounding ad hominem like 'Dunning Kruger'.
Odds of accurately recognising N. are ~'stopped clock right 2x a day'.
Hey, check this out.
In the past 24 hours, someone just suggested shared automatic blocklists. Mercifully Gargron shot it down immediately.
https://github.com/tootsuite/mastodon/pull/7059
It's almost as if some kind of person or people would value having centralised control over what was built to be a decentalised system.
I guess that makes us both ENTIRELY SHOCKED by turn of events. ๐ฒ
@Barcode
I'm impressed myself, actually.
I dunno. It's kinda norm for Gargron, reassuringly.
Lot of what he does isn't spontaneous fire-from-the-hip decision making. There's quite a few votes and invitations to pitch a counterview.
Guy wants to hear an opposing side's argument. Means he values quality. It's an absolute contrast to communs with Twitter's Jack or YouTube's Susan/anyone.
So, I don't know if he's a regular guy with a great system or a genius with one, but he consistently doesn't go path of least resistance.
@Barcode
Huh. Interesting.
@Barcode My opinion:
Since silencing or blocking an instance is a case of admins exercising power over their users (preventing their users from communicating with others), I think transparency is important.
The only exception would be if an instance is silenced/blocked for really nasty content (think child porn) - you generally don't want to publish lists of where people can find that stuff.