I believe that most of the people that migrated from #Twitter, did so because twitter was becoming quite an extremist toxic environment. There's also the whole centralization and censoring issues with platforma like that.
I have witnessed people criticizing (not debating) each other here in #Mastodon for a flexible opinion on private companies and capitalism as a whole. This sounds like extremism to me from the other side of the spectrum.
I've seen people being kicked out of chat groups for using the word "Linux" as a reference to the OS with the #Linux kernel. Apparently this is capital sin, you should use either #GNU or GNU/Linux. Am I the only one who think this is a bit too much?
I've also seen people engaging in strong criticisms because some organizations should have a more active presence in decentralized services. I agree with the premise, but did we stop to help them reach more people while breaking free from GAFAM?
Where are all the people who talk about sports? Or politics? Or discuss books they read recently?
Where are all the people who discuss practical ways of helping friends and family with barely any IT skill migrate away from GAFAM instead of shoving down theoretical approaches from Saint IGNUcius?
I think one of the things that bothered me the most was a developer saying that he'd stop his support to certain tool because the community was "stupid". He literally said that!
I've always questioned why admins of public instances should block far-right instances. I mean, aren't freedom of speech and "own your data" the whole points of decentralization?
If said "speech" instigate hate, chaos or promote disinformation, you can use your influence to let people know and maybe block it just for you. However, I think people can decide by themselves what they wanna see in their local and global timelines.
While many of you are fighting each other because a specific tool should be decentralized or because some other service is using something from Google, senior citizens just wanna see photos of their grandkids, teenagers just wanna be part of their social circles and adults just want something that works, plain and simple.
How are you helping these kinds of people break away from GAFAM? How can these people (and small businesses) rely on a community that fight each other?
Freedom of speech is the freedom of someone to decide what to publish or not too publish on their own site.
It does not mean that you can come onto my site and say racist and sexist things on my site claiming if I don't want to publish your contrary views on my site that it is an infringement on your freedom of speech.
Do you understand?
Build your own site.
@hhardy01 One thing is to publish on other people´s site, another thing is to publish on a so-called public instance. Does it instigate hate? Does it cross the line between freedom of speech and crime? How about calling the proper authorities?
Building their own websites surely solve a lot of censorship issues and claims. But, are they effective against hate?
@hhardy01 You can take mastodon.social as an example, as far as I´m concerned (and the server can hold up) anyone can join. People are free to block anyone they want but why does the admin has a list of other instances that are blocked for everyone inside of it?
@hhardy01 Thanks, I appreciate you taking the time to send me that and I'm well aware of that list. However, that's not what I was questioning.
Anyway, it's fine. I got a few perspectives on the matter, though. Clarified a bit more why things are the way they are 😊
mastodon.social is not called a public instance in the sense that anyone can say anything or use it for any purpose.
It is very clearly a private instance owned by one person, Eugen.
Are you making a straw man argument trying to make some kind of parallel between twitter and fediverse censorship?
Because you aren't completely wrong but I think you are stretching the point quite a bit.
@hhardy01 What I mean by "public" is anyone can join, not necessarily they can do whatever they want. It's good to have clear rules *inside* the instance.
My point was to block entire instances because it might be offensive to someone, but people are capable enough of blocking whatever offensive profile they want.
@openscience raised a point on legal liability where the admins could be responsible for third-party content inside their server, which makes the block "understandable" in some way.
@hhardy01 I'm not concerned about "blocking instances", I was trying to raise a discussion on "censorship" and "biased moderation" from the same people that criticise this behaviour from big tech. That's all, I'm not trying to defend or "unblock" anyone in particular :)
So far, my personal experiences with the community and the moderators have been overwhelmingly positive.
Nonetheless, we must of course also examine the areas that can still be improved.
But improvements in:
- Égalisation of instances
- Transferability of user accounts, their contents, their followers, etc.pp.
... could certainly mitigate some of the issues raised.
Once again, the "free speech" at issue is that of the site owner. They don't have to post the opinions of others, for any reason. They certainly should not be compelled to post the opinions of others with which they disagree.
So no, I don't agree that the free speech rights of others in any way shape or form gives them a "right" to compel me to publish their opinions or anything else.
Do you agree that "freedom of speech" is the freedom to publish or not to publish?
I’m pretty sick of people whining about their free speech being infringed when a website doesn’t let them post something offensive.
If I invite you into my house or place of business, and you start spouting racist crap, I can choose to kick you out of my house/business, and your rights are not being infringed at all.
You’re still free to say all the racist crap you want out on the street.
No I did not. 😂
... If this was not an accusation, I think the text is worded in a slightly misleading way. 🤔🤷♀️
Think it is beneficial to distinguish different cases.
If it is a private environment:
I would agree with you.
If it is not a purely private context with a dominant position / monopoly / gatekeeper:
I believe it is advantageous, to think about whether this should be considered a public space to some extent.
... BUT hey... 🤷... I also don't have a locked opinion or claim to know a definitive correct answer / solution either.
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!