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 At least that would make more sense compared to a certain instance that's banned (not even media blocked) on, for the sole reason that it allows to post "immoral artwork". Won't mention its name but I think everyone knows which that is.

That's also a good example as to why I strongly support Librem's no moderation approach: These days everything goes too far! What starts as justified for select cases almost always turns into random mass censoring.

@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 i think it's great & have donated to show appreciation - even tho i run my own instance! I actually decided it'd be only fair to donate to you too, so i'm now a patreon of yours :D

@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.

@Gargron they should stand strong. Censorship is no good. As I mentioned in another post. They should be allowed a voice, just because you don’t agree with it doesn’t mean it should go away. While I may not agree with that content, I am intrigued when I read it as I am astonished on how a segment of the population can not advance. Gotta have love for all sides. This is how we grow.

@mpg @Gargron Moderation in private spaces is not censorship.

And no, you absolutely do not “gotta have love” for harassment, racism, bigotry, &c. FFS.

@a @Gargron you have a choice. Block or mute. When did you decide what was acceptable? Who said I can? We can all be responsible for the content we want to consume. The big eraser unfortunately is not the answer and should not be a universal one. But I respect your opinion and thank you for the interaction. This is what it's all about. 👍

@mpg @Gargron You’re missing the point. Yes, individual users can decide they don’t want to see. But platform operators can *also* decide what they don’t want to host.

@a @Gargron if there is a group/instance that want to censor so be it. The point missed here is, who should decide what is better for the whole? Most instances let's be honest contain a collective of like minded folks. So go for it if instance XYZ feels the need. Those that disagree will find a new instance. But that doesn't mean instance X should be damned and the operators stoned. Because they choose to go unmoderated. The essence of a truly free communication.

@mpg @Gargron Moderation is not censorship. You keep using that word; I do not think it means what you think it means.

There is no “deciding what is better for the whole” here. The operator of the largest instance is giving advice to another instance. It seems odd to me that folks can get so worked up about that.

@a @Gargron beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I appreciate the feedback and the discussion. At this point it's redundant, I will go in a circle. As I stated in another post. Let's move on and focus on the real problem like the Gov't who as we type are futher plotting the removal of out fundamental right to privacy. Have a great one brother. 👍

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"

@paulakreuzer @Gargron since when is mastodon dot social a democratic instance?:blobcatglaredrink:

@lucy You don't need to have democracy to ask the people what they want.

@paulakreuzer Considering we live in a day and age where everyone is offended by the smallest of things, I'm sure a few people saying "boo" will count as "unbearable" to the majority in no time.

@MirceaKitsune I don't know anyone who is offended by the smallest of things and especially I don't know any moderators who would delete posts or block users anywhere for the smallest of reasons.
But explicitly announcing you are not moderating racists, sexists and so on at all as long as they don't harass anyone is on the completely other end of the spectrum.

@paulakreuzer Moderating racists and sexists is normally a noble cause. The moment you can moderate them however, people will request that you moderate infringement too. Once you do that, they request that you moderate because they think it magically damages children who enjoy it. Then you must moderate whatever they consider to be and so on.

Big social media has already proven that external moderation is often a danger. I now believe self moderation must be the way.

@paulakreuzer Some don't realize how different and / or flawed others perception of right and wrong can be. We live in a society that's desperate to sacrifice freedom over safety at the silliest inconvenience. Many who do nothing wrong are victims in the war of "good guys" against "bad guys"... whoever either of those two randomly happen to be. And when it's losing your freedom to whatever they decide is a worthy cause, good luck getting anyone in a powerful position to care for you.

@MirceaKitsune Sorry, but that argument is very flawed. Why would the place where moderators draw the line influence what people think should also be over the line?

If I offered you a glass of water and your happy with it and then I offered you water or apple juice you wouldn't suddenly demand orange juice.

@paulakreuzer Slippery slopes happen with content moderation online. I tend to see it as a black & white issue now, as once there's the option to moderate people can request and misuse it for any given reason. It's made me very weary of the idea of external moderation in general. Especially after seeing the way governments are trying to moderate speech on the big tech platforms.

@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.

@Gargron I don't. It's time to have the free and open internet we were promised, which the instance is heroically helping us build. Nanny culture has gone much too far: It's time to accept that pixels on a computer screen are NOT some sort of physical danger that people can't handle. If anyone disagrees with something, they're free to simply block that user or even the instance themselves. Why does someone always have to take care of somebody else's thoughts?

This is what happens when we accept that everything should be safe and moderated and people should always have their feelings attended to by an authority. We stand to have the free internet shut down, in the name of safety from lit LED's of various colors.

Is this the future that we want? Because I'm sure it is not mine... and I'm glad that @purism agree with me and are fighting in our name.

@MirceaKitsune @Gargron
"Why does someone always have to take care of somebody else's thoughts?“ seems to me its because they much rely on past and feels like needed to jump in before others do... its none fault and everyones....just look how we treat environment -.-

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!