I disagree with Purism's hands-off moderation approach and I have urged them to re-consider their stance.

@Gargron Will you be blocking their instances from

@jack If the volume of bannable users from will become unbearable to handle on an individual basis, then a block will be introduced. For now it's a hypothetical.

@Gargron thank you, but I don't think they will. I've spent multiple whole days on this.


listen, I don't think you're right about a lot of shit but

classy move here, honestly

good on you

@solder_on @Gargron

I think @Gargron usually wants to do the right thing... his historical narrative trends to the positive overall.

@thegibson @Gargron

his intent wasn't in question, only his conclusions about some things

and honestly, I'm nobody anyway; my opinion's not gonna matter to him regardless, generally?

so I might as well chime in, even if it requires qualifying statements about other shit

just my logic on it

@Gargron Thank you for your support :) I'm giving Librem One a few months because I like the idea behind it, but I'm hoping they quickly improve how Social is handled.

@Gargron They have a very US-centric view on this, and most people who do have a hard time understanding arguments that are more like the European view.

Who wants @Gargron to ban

since texts for each choice must be super short here is option 3:

only if "the volume of bannable users from will become unbearable"

@Gargron isn't having instance with "hands-off" moderation a feature of Mastodon? If everyone get pissed off by the mere eventuality that they might read something that will offend them, why don't everyone stick with Twitter then? Everyday on Mastodon I read statuses that annoy me and I don't agree with, I got trolled from time to time, but I just mute/block them and I will be pissed off if those users were kicked out because of their opinions (except targeted harassment and doxxing of course)

@Sosthene @Gargron The ability to have instances with different moderation policies is a feature of the protocol, yes. But that does not make it a good idea for an instance to not have good moderation.

@a @Gargron if they have too much trolls over there other instances will blacklist them, and I think it's not in their best interest either so they might want to tighten things a little before that. My point is that they took a clear and principled stance about moderation (for what I've seen at least), it might not work as intended but I don't think other people should try to force them to explicitly ban "bigotry", "hate speech" or whatever they don't agree with, before anything even occurred

@Sosthene @Gargron Why? What is the logic here? “I don’t want you to use my platform to incite hatred, but I’m going to wait until you do so before saying anything about it”? It’s not like we’re talking about unprecedented things here; how these platforms get abused is mostly predictable at this point.

@a @Gargron "hands-off moderation" != "use my platform to incite hatred". Did they explicitly stated that they want to promote hate? Sorry I missed that. If not then you're just putting words in their mouth. @Gargron and others made their point pretty clear I think, we'll see how they handle that and they are responsible for it

@Gargron the fact that it's even possible for Purism to moderate their social media instance is a good reason for the public at large to avoid using it. what things constitute harassment or abuse are extremely political. no one should trust that Purism won't remove their content based on whatever some fascists got them to think should count as racist today.
Sign in to participate in the conversation

Server run by the main developers of the project 🐘 It is not focused on any particular niche interest - everyone is welcome as long as you follow our code of conduct!