@librelounge I haven't listened to the episode, yet, but this has been bothering me for a while, since the mute/block approach means that there's a world of difference between the community established members see and the trash newcomers are going to see, which isn't exactly the best foot forward.
@librelounge Now listened, it seems like a good start, but avoids the broadcast nature of networks: Hate speech does damage without a vulnerable person receiving it.
I once looked at using the Scuttlebutt network as a proxy for appreciation and recursively collect/scale follows/blocks to guess who's worth following or blocking.
I like the premise because it uses real priorities, doesn't require a new system layer, and newcomers can use it. Is something similar feasible for ActivityPub?
We can't stop someone from emailing someone else, or sending them a text message. Similarly what two people do between their private instances is beyond the scope of what we can address.
You said that you'd like to see Secure Scuttlebutt networks here, but I don't see what Scuttlebutt could add in this scenario. Public SSB posts are public.
Can you elaborate on what you think SSB brings to the table around the area of abuse/hate speech?
@emacsen @librelounge I probably edited that comment beyond recognition. I meant that I looked at "recursive follows and blocks" in the CONTEXT of SSB, not that I necessarily prefer it.
What I was asking about was the feasibility of using follow/block/like information for each user to calculate what public posts are worth reading.
That is, if I follow A and A blocks B and follows C, there's a better chance of my wanting to block B than C. C's behavior would also be interesting, but less so.
@emacsen @librelounge Digging into the applications of that kind of recursive calculation, if many people, especially people you like, block an account, you can detect that those targets are maybe not worth listening to, spammers, creeps, or just low-quality accounts. No guarantee, because you might like a whole bunch of fascists and bots, but a decent guess for most people.
@jcolag @librelounge I agree with "hate speech does damage without a vulnerable person receiving it." Maybe better phrasing is probably "reducing abuse" (particularly directed abuse) rather than "stopping hate speech", the latter of which is a claim nobody can fully prevent and we can't either.
It does provide a system by which people performing hate speech may be stuck on their own islands, at least; not perfect, better than what we have now though by a wide margin.
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!