@djsumdog my main problem with your Section 230 post is that it still feels like a post set in the "social media is both media and the infrastructure" kind of thinking.

We really need to split these two apart, and until we do, we will not be able to have a way forward, because infrastructure related examples (AT&T, etc) will directly oppose any accountability ideas.

@djsumdog
and I do think social media should be allowed to editorialize, as long as it's on an open protocol. I do not see why a blog can't be a part of a social media network. Can it?

If it can, can *my* blog be a part of a social media network?

If it can, can I editorialize on my own blog?

I feel I should be allowed to do that. And thus, social media instances should, too. The reason we feel this is problematic is because how big, walled off, and monopolistic Fb and are.

@djsumdog ah, but if a Mastodon or Pleroma instance started doing that, people would go somewhere else, because they can in an open network like the Fediverse.

That's my point. You don't need that kind of an explicit ban if you make sure the network is open and users can move about and choose their own adventure.

What gives fedi.example.org to be the arbiter of truth on their instance? The same thing that gives me that power on (say) instance.rys.io, for example. Why take that away from me?

@allison @djsumdog oh, that we need to do also. But the fact that we can have such a calm and compose conversation about this without the alt-right folk derailing it immediately is a testament to how much better it works here compared to the walled gardens...

@djsumdog @allison I never said there isn't one. I only said I don't see a problem with that, at least not as much of a problem as I see with centralized walled gardens pushing alt-right content on all their users, because that drives engagement.

@allison @djsumdog monopolised, centralized social media is a monoculture where mind viruses can spread unchecked.

@rysiek @allison @djsumdog

…how much better it works here compared to the walled gardens…

But you’re in a walled garden now? Being on that particular instance, known for being heavily instance block happy, results in a distorted view of the overall network, no?

@wolfie @allison @djsumdog "distorted view" is not a "walled garden". Everyone's view is distorted. But I have the option of creating other accounts in other fractured parts of that network - and that's something I do not have on centralized social media.

I choose not to do so because I *don't want* to deal with fascists on an everyday basis. Another thing I have no say over on centralized walled gardens.

@rysiek @allison @djsumdog

Your choice I guess. Have fun in the echo chamber

@wolfie @allison @djsumdog and you likewise in yours!

Glad we were able to reach each other for this moment in time, bridging our respective echo chambers. What a fortuitous happenstance, my word!

@djsumdog I don't think it does, really. And even if, I prefer these bubbles (where I *can* have accounts in different bubbles) to a centralized network where anything goes and I am exposed constantly to right-wing harassment and lies.

It is, to some extent, about bringing some friction to how news (be it real or fake) spreads, and making it harder for viral alt-right content to be put in front of more eyeballs, without having a central authority impose such rules explicitly.