@p@Moon have you guys considered an alternate Fediverse Server Covenant (vs. MSC) ? Like, same thing, but not retarded, frozen peachy, etc? If nothing else, offering a well-known counterpoint and critical position...
"we support a diversity of opinion such that a simple covenant or code of conduct is a disservice, therefore we recommend you use the sensitivity flag."
Some sort of statement that defines a counterargument, if not a mirror of its form.
@jeremiah@p sub-point would be "how do you define 'nsfw'" and the answer is "use your best, good-faith judgment of what a person on a train wouldn't want the person next to them to see them viewing" or something like that.
@jeremiah@Moon I mean, my position is that an attempt to centralize standards is antithetical to proper operation of the network.
If a former admin (familiar with the ins and outs of running one of these but not actively participating in administration) laid out something like that and encouraged some reasonable standards and listed instances that fit those standards, that would probably be the only way to do that kind of structure and get it right. However, from a practical perspective, either the seal of approval wouldn't matter, or it would matter and there would be a lot of arguing about whether some action constituted a violation of some principle set forth in the standards.
Or flip it the other direction: instances voluntarily put a note in the sidebar or something: "We endorse this set of rules." Anyone would be able to *claim* it so it'd be caveat user but it would be a way to signal "This is how we intend to run this place."
For my part, I think instances are not relevant and my code will speak for itself when I've got it out to the world.
> there should be a middle ground. basically no assholes.
Hammurabi, man. The big innovation was that people could know what the law was. There is no way to enforce "no assholes". It's also not desirable or possible to police intent. You cannot stop assholes, because you cannot enforce civility ("Non omne quod licet honestum est"), but you can let assholes make themselves obvious. Worse, you allow humorless dickheads to shut down hyperbole, a critical component of jokes. Worse than *that*, you'll open the door to sociopaths that will use minor infractions to silence others. The end result is that you end up with a sterile place run by the worst people and populated by people whose skulls rattle when they nod their heads: the rest of us will have fucked off to somewhere that we don't have to worry about that bullshit, and then normies will move in demanding that place be gelded, too.
> AFAIK freeze peachy servers have no problem hosting accounts that jump into threads
Nice Crew Dot Digital is big fans of the "single gamer word" reply train, and while FSE is still running Pleroma, my options are limited (my solution was to get my account instance-blocked :strangelovewant:), but self-censorship is a losing proposition. If people disagree, the solution isn't to solve it by trying to compel the other instance to enforce something that is within permissible behavior for them.
I think you have (again) confused illocutionary acts with mere locution. "Spam" is an action, its goal is not to convey an idea but to get people to do something. Here is Searle and I think you ought to read it this time, or at least stop publicly conflating freedom of speech with yelling in someone's face. You could also read the Snyder v. Phelps (2011) decision. I have also written at length on this.
> instead of silencing an individual voice, it makes lots of people not want to speak up.
I have heard this argument before and it is a bad argument (as well as a very old one, though the name escapes me) and I don't know if you were present but I've answered it several times.
If someone doesn't speak up because they are worried about what other people will say in response, their neurosis is culpable, not any other person. (If you are worried that you'll be spammed with shit you don't want to read, that's something you solve with tooling.) We live in an age where we have unprecedented ability to publish anything anonymously and get it read by anyone on earth, this ability is expanding (and I am doing my part), and this free flow of information only scares people that want to control who can say what. If you're worried they'll make fun of what you have to say, you have only yourself to blame, but you've got a worse idea if you don't allow any critiques (the irony having been lost on people that espouse "Critical $x Theory"). This was what essentially what Ridgway (I believe) said about Patton during the Korean War, Patton had spent a decade in Washington getting his ass kissed and his thinking had suffered as a result.
And, you know, you don't want to hear what people have to say, you take Pleroma, you write an MRF that stops replies from coming through. Or just enable the Hellthread MRF and crank it all the way down. Nobody can be tagged. You've invented a heavyweight blog, but we have those already.
> I want everybody as comfortable as possible talking to each other.
The best you can do is converse with people that are unwilling to converse with people on the other side, either because they have nothing to say except political propaganda or because they are worried what others might say about their words, instead of saying it to people that are unwilling to police others' speech. You'll not have much luck convincing a dive bar to stop playing songs with curse words or stop letting people tell dirty jokes. searle75b.pdf
there should be a middle ground. basically no assholes. AFAIK freeze peachy servers have no problem hosting accounts that jump into threads to post nigger. my goal here is good conversations. that kind of shit is just as bad as censorship. instead of silencing an individual voice, it makes lots of people not want to speak up. the former is usually used against conservatives, the latter deters lefties. I want everybody as comfortable as possible talking to each other.
@wjmaggos@p@Moon the MSC is someone's definition of a middle ground. The middle ground are your block and mute controls.
Arbitrary notions of any given person's "comfort" is not relevant in this context: they have the same two comfort adjustment buttons mentioned above, so that's out of the equation.
If someone can't post nigger, they can't post the lyrics to a non-trivial fraction of pop music lyrics, so this isn't about nigger, it's about censoring perspectives you don't like, simple as.
> but people who jump into a thread to post it or lots of other abusive shit are just being assholes.
Sure. So? Assholes are assholes, you can't cure it. Unless you plan to put them all in a camp and fire up the ovens, they're going to be *somewhere*. Naturally they will gravitate to the places where they are free to follow their inclinations, and behavior that nobody wants to see is only permitted in very permissive places.
Some people like having the assholes around, anyway. *I* like having the assholes around. As long as nobody can get rid of them, the e-Gestapo isn't breathing down my neck about making dick jokes. Weirdos get painted with the "asshole" brush and anywhere that assholes are chased away eventually chases away the merely unpleasant: weirdos, freaks, anti-social nerds, hackers, criminals, pirates, every interesting person. (Find me a creative person that isn't a thought-criminal.)
Very permissive places also appeal to people that don't want some rules e-lawyer to threaten to narc on them while they are chilling on the internet and talking to their friends.
If the people you want to bring here are indispensable from your perspective and I'm disposable, then that's fine: my server exists without permission, the software I am writing exists without permission and will eliminate the need (or ability) to moderate this server (which will go from a node on this network to an amorphous cluster of nodes on this network),
> that doesn't change that this is a shitty experience for lots of people.
I'd rather they be here than Twitter, but if that means the place becomes friendly to them and unfriendly to me, they already have the Mall Internet, I only have this place. I'm not the only one, either: lots of people are here because this is the only tolerable place for them. "You should feel welcome nowhere so that extroverted normies can feel welcome everywhere!" Thank you, I decline to sacrifice the one place I like in order to gentrify it so that a bunch of lily-white teenagers with shitty politics can be happy *here*, too.
> it's functionally biased towards hearing more from cons and assholes. and calling yourselves victims.
I stand up a Pleroma server because Twitter is bullshit and fedi is nice. I expect adults to be able to handle themselves. If this creates political bias, I don't recall being conscripted or paid to eliminate political bias, I recall wanting to participate in a network that I thought was pretty cool. I don't get where the "calling yourselves victims" comes from. FSE is here so that I have a place to be and so that other people have a place to be. I care about freedom of speech and I do not care to sterilize anything: this is where you find the people that would be censored elsewhere and censoring them here is antithetical to the purpose. Without a hint of equivocation, I refuse to chop the balls off this place to make it more comfortable for the people that are responsible for fucking up the rest of the web. They've chased the interesting people out of everywhere else, here we have a relative paradise, fuck the people that would like to chase the interesting people out of here, too. They can go back to Snapchat or Tumblr or Facebook or Twitter or any of the other places where they are welcome because here it does not matter if I'm welcome or not: I can be here and am here.
post any word you want as a new post or as a reply to people you know etc, but people who jump into a thread to post it or lots of other abusive shit are just being assholes. they enjoy making others feel worse. and yes, we can mute or block them immediately afterwards but that doesn't change that this is a shitty experience for lots of people.
your take isn't principled, it's functionally biased towards hearing more from cons and assholes. and calling yourselves victims.
@wjmaggos@p@Moon so this quickly becomes a fundamental philosophical question:
Do we, or do we not want governance?
Fedi has governance is built in at the user and administrative levels. What you are pushing at is something beyond this and your justification is, "but if we don't, people will be people."
If pristine threads are important, defederate your server, but it's fairly authoritarian to suggest that the rest of the world needs to toe your line.
@Moon@p@jeremiah > it's not nsfw she's ACTUALLY not a sexual being but a 912346789123659812645968 year old demi-alien from beyond the stars and so, ipso facto, is non-sexual
@jeremiah@Moon@p We're like indie musicians, having the freedom to perform all kinds of different music because we don't need to follow mainstream record label demands for commercial viability.
@jeremiah@p@Moon My point is that if you make rules you create rules lawyers, people who want to post-hoc rationalize how it's fine if they break the rule-spirit, by following the rule-letter, according to their whim. Even simple rules have seemingly infinite blowback potential, and casual suggestion of rules is a favorite game of the back-seat admin, and the foolhardy. Doubly so that centralizing rule creation and interpretation always makes them worse, because you necessarily empower the body who handles it. Even if you are trustworthy, you attract those who above all, desire power. So point 1. rules lawyers
Sure, and that's fine if you are making a forum for civilized discussion. I am attending a party full of nerds and freaks and weird fuckers.
> imagine you like having parties with contentious convos, but some guy is just rude.
I remember that guy maybe 20 years ago that moved to San Francisco and sued this gay bar that he lived near for contributing to making the neighborhood shitty because dudes was suckin' dicks in the alley, right? And my thought was "Why the fuck did he move to San Francisco? They were there suckin' dicks in the alley before he showed up." I wouldn't want to live in a place where there were dudes suckin' dicks in the alley under my window, right, but I don't show up in a city where there are dudes suckin' dicks in alleys, buy a place overlooking an alley, and then demand they change what they are doing to accommodate me. He should have sued his realtor if he was gonna sue anyone. (If he was smart, he would have made lemonade: filming it, I imagine, could have paid his mortgage, but in either case, if he'd hung onto it until about ten years ago, he could have made a lot of money than he would have made from a frivolous lawsuit.)
At any rate, I decline to allow people that don't want to talk to me to dictate the rules under which I talk to other people. They don't get a vote, and they waived their right to even make a suggestion when they blocked FSE. Good riddance.
> one neighborhood sends about 80% assholes but 20% interesting/dissident views.
That's been quantified. It's about 4%, and the percentage is constant between "neighborhoods": the places that call *this* place an asshole neighborhood have about as many assholes as we do. Propinquity creates a bias in perception, this is common knowledge. In any case, it's better to instance-block the handful of people that your instance can't tolerate. decentralized_web_moderation.pdf
I'm not arguing for pristine threads. Im arguing for what @amerika calls decorum. everybody can express strong opinions even as replies, just don't be an asshole.
imagine you like having parties with contentious convos, but some guy is just rude. he doesn't get invited next time. now imagine you must pick your guests randomly from different neighborhoods and one neighborhood sends about 80% assholes but 20% interesting/dissident views. I'm asking they tighten that up.
There's so many presumptions behind these censorious codes, apparently unexamined!
Censorship in line with kid-glove sensibilities is imposed on most major platforms, that's not enough. (MUST BE MY WAY EVERYWHERE ALWAYS!)
At my most prudish and socially conservative, I defend that there must be free space just so that we can see what we're all saying and know where people are really at.
> sure but some people are primarily here to be assholes.
Sure. As long as they do not cause me any trouble, that's their business. You cannot, in practical terms, prevent this kind of thing, you just mitigate it when it causes problems for you.
> I'm trying to keep those w unpopular opinions in the wider conversation, but get rid of the jerks.
As previously demonstrated, this is impossible and undesirable.
sure but some people are primarily here to be assholes. or to use some of their accounts that way. they'd probably be jerks to everyone AFK if they could but pretty soon nobody would talk to them. here you want the rest of us to be considered assholes for trying to find a way to avoid them.
I'm trying to keep those w unpopular opinions in the wider conversation, but get rid of the jerks. you and the woke think that's impossible or not worth the effort.
@wjmaggos@PakkonenCT@p@Moon@amerika ok, if some people are primarily here to be assholes, then they're assholes. Under our present architecture, they have as much right to be here as liberals, since we're speaking in categorical terms.
To this, you want to add probability, so now we're policing categories by likelihoods, and you bear the conceit that you're fit to judge who deserves to participate and who is "an asshole."
Scratch the surface of a liberal, and you find an authoritarian.
@wjmaggos@PakkonenCT@p@Moon@amerika the tools you want are literally there, right now, but they're just for you. What pisses you off is you don't get to manage the switches for other people, which is what this is about.
@jeremiah the pernicious influence of federalism shows itself once again. This why I advocate for a confederated universe or "confedi" for short. @wjmaggos@p@Moon
@wjmaggos@jeremiah@PakkonenCT@Moon@amerika I wasn't complaining because I don't give a shit, because the people doing it are goddamn stupid, but this is another terrible line of reasoning:
> the tools to defederate exist too. that's what you're complaining about.
"You can't complain about getting nuked by people that figured a war with conventional weapons would take too much time."
> you call them censors cause they don't want to hang out with you.
No, instance-blocking an account that causes trouble is one thing, but blocking an instance prevents two people that were completely uninvolved from conversing with each other. I cannot talk to people that I would like to talk to because someone I've never talked to decided to instance-block FSE on the grounds that someone on FSE annoyed someone else.
Or a lot of them work by copying a blocklist. wagesofsinisdeath.com is an instance that existed for less than a month, nearly four years ago. It had been down and the domain expired for *years* before the majority of these instances existed, so zero users from that site have caused any trouble for anyone, but they copy the blocklist: https://fba.ryona.agency/?domain=wagesofsinisdeath.com .
Tolerance and approval are very different things and equating them is sloppy thinking at best and disingenuous at worst.
It's totally legal to endorse Hitler, but you shouldn't. If you say to someone that they shouldn't or you ask them why they do, and their response is that they're free to do so, this is not a reasonable response: they haven't answered the question.
They're free to import blocklists and I'm free to point out that it's goddamn retarded. It's a non sequitur to equate saying that it's stupid with compelling them by force. (These are people that would compel FSE's closure by force if they could, so I'm not particularly disposed to give them a vote in how FSE works to begin with.) But the question of "Should they be prevented from doing this?" is a completely different question from "Is it stupid for them to do this?" It is stupid for them to do that. People should not endorse Hitler, this is stupid, but preventing them from voicing that opinion is not the same thing.
the tools to defederate exist too. that's what you're complaining about. that most people shouldn't use that option to exclude the servers you like. they shouldn't get to associate only with the people they like. you call them censors cause they don't want to hang out with you. but that's freedom too.
> you said the defederating is retarded. if you're fine with the state of the fedi, great. I am not.
Go talk to the people doing the fracturing; I am not changing anything with the hope that people that wish to stop FSE from existing will start being nice to me. taking_out_fse.png
@wjmaggos@PakkonenCT@p@Moon@amerika additionally, my opinion of the state of fedi does not, to me, justify actions to police the actions of others beyond the already complete suite of content management tools available to me.
to clear the matter: i am in favor of a fractured fediverse. I would prefer the fracturing happen at the user level, but some people would like their spaces moderated, so there is an admin level for that purpose.
While I am opposed to blocklists, they are the are the logical spackle to fill in for the lack of centralized censorship, and a lot of sites opt in to that, which they have a right to, as their users have mobility.
> it's not beyond the normal set of tools to have admins kick trolls off their servers.
You'll not like my tarball when I dump it on the unsuspecting public.
> I'd rather more servers do that than other servers defederate from them.
"You use the same domain as someone that did something that is incompatible with our rules. Your entire server will be nuked."
> I get the sense both right and left generally think they have nothing to learn from each other.
I get the feeling you do not hang out around these parts very often and perceive them as "right-wing" because you are calibrated for places that ban anyone remotely right-wing. There are very right-wing people here but there are also communists and socialists and completely apolitical people. I think politics are boring and the left-right split is fictitious, manufactured for the sake of authoritarianism: is that a right-wing or left-wing alignment?
it's not beyond the normal set of tools to have admins kick trolls off their servers. it's a choice. I'd rather more servers do that than other servers defederate from them. I think this would make for a better fedi, but I'm a weirdo. I get the sense both right and left generally think they have nothing to learn from each other. so while some will complain about the divide (not you guys, never, sorry for the confusion), compromise isn't happening.
I think the present state, imperfections included, is a reasonable demonstration of functioning laissez faire system that bears as much regulation as you'd like, per server or per person, or as little as you'd like, per server with user mobility.
I also think I know what "better" looks like, but I'd not try to impose it on or do it here. :-)
@p@amerika@wjmaggos@amerika@jeremiah@Moon >I wouldn't want to live in a place where there were dudes suckin' dicks in the alley under my window And yet here you are, on the Mastadon network
> AFAIK trolls are always conservative, even though most conservatives are not trolls.
Have you been a parody account this entire time? Or are you using a different definition of troll than I am?
> imo you feel stuck because to just get rid of trolls would appear to be acting like an asshole lefty and unfairly picking on conservatives.
See the other posts: I do not wish to get rid of "trolls" or assholes, a process which I described as "gelding" (twice). I'm not stuck in any sense of the word. I am annoyed that there are people I cannot talk to but that issue is with their behavior, not my situation. I'm pretty happy here and I do not wish to change the place to accommodate people that would be happier elsewhere.
AFAIK trolls are always conservative, even though most conservatives are not trolls. asshole lefties instead censor and demand everybody else do so too.
imo you feel stuck because to just get rid of trolls would appear to be acting like an asshole lefty and unfairly picking on conservatives. this troll/conservative overlap is also why many lefties feel like they can justify being indiscriminate in blocking servers with lots of conservatives.
> non dark fedi servers would block other non dark fedi servers if they had lots of trolls and refused to do anything about them,
We can just call Mastodon white-fedi.
But no, this is inaccurate. You are giving them credit based on some completely unwarranted assumptions of good faith. FSE made an attempt way back to work with them. We got blocks with no reports, we get blocks based on lies and speculation and rumors, I gave up on caring what those people thought. FSE never allowed loli hentai, we got blocks due to people claiming we did when we had a single-digit number of users. We still have that: "lolicon" is cited as one of the reasons we're blocked by puntarella.party, for instance. All kinds of things that were prohibited here got us blocks elsewhere. Some of the reasons given at https://fba.ryona.agency/?domain=freespeechextremist.com are accurate (FSE does not ban people for "ableism"), some are technically accurate but misleading (it is true but misleading to say that we do not ban people for being far-right, but FSE also does not ban anyone for being far-left), and a large part of it is actual lies ("harassment instance", "harmful interpretation of free speech includes tormenting others", etc.).
> refused to do anything about them,
This part is especially galling. FSE got instance-blocked by knzk.me on the word of someone that prodded a couple of people from FSE on a regular basis, got an in-kind response. Because I never got reports from these people and only found out there was a problem after the block, I went out of my way and said "Hey, are these people creating a problem?" to the person in question, who said "No, not harassment, just bantering" and this person took screenshots of only the replies (that is, out of context, without the provocations) to the knzk.me admin and said "Look how they've harassed me! The admin won't do anything!" So way past "making shit up" or "blocking before trying to resolve the problem", there were people making plans to stage things to get us blocked, even in the absence of problems. I can dig up all of the old screenshots, but you keep parroting things you heard and you don't appear to read what I'm writing: people have persistently lied about FSE and about me personally in order to get FSE blocked, and this is entirely due to politics. Or look at that sunbeam.city horseshit: it started with "this guy wants to be a mod, we have to vet him" to "this guy is a friend and colleague of the guy that runs FSE" to "the FSE guy doesn't ban fascists and must be a fascist and thus this guy that he's friends with must also be a fascist, despite ostensibly being a life-long leftist and DSA coalition supporter and Bernie Sanders campaign volunteer", after which it went all the way off the goddamn rails and they were claiming I threatened to murder them.
Your Pollyanna "I'd like it if people could all talk...they'd talk to you if there was no harassment!" view is so far off the mark that it'd take you a week just to read through the screenshots. FSE has not blocked them, they have blocked FSE. I have been proactive about preventing actual problems like harassment. And here you are, proving that the Goebbels approach works, because the lie has been repeated at you often enough that you just sort of casually toss it out like it's some kind of accepted fact. You don't ask, you just repeat it, and then you scold us and tell us to stop it and that the "by any means necessary" people that have spent years lying about people outside their politically oriented clique would be glad to talk to us otherwise. They wouldn't, they won't, and it's got nothing to do with anything I have done or failed to do.
Very soon after that nonsense started, I stopped giving a shit. They want to dictate: they do not want to cooperate, they do not want a dialog, they do not want to come together and hold hands and sing, there is nothing that I *could* do to change their minds even if I wanted to. Someone comes to me with a problem, I try to fix the problem, but they'd rather build the wall, and good goddamn riddance. The only real problem is the lying, but there's not a lot I can do about that, either.
non dark fedi servers would block other non dark fedi servers if they had lots of trolls and refused to do anything about them, even if they otherwise had all the appropriate lefty opinions. am I correct that you don't want your server blocked but won't do anything about your trolls?
I agree many servers will block for bad opinions no matter the troll count, but fuck them. and see above. the perception is cons and trolls are inseparable. I disagree.
@wjmaggos@jeremiah@p@Moon Back when I ran #CounterFedi I adopted a rule that you integrated #USA law’s principle of harassment: if someone tells you to stop talking to them, and you don’t stop talking to them, then that’s harassment and against the rules. It’s the non-cucked definition of harassment that still would help gatekeep from the types of trolls you’re talking about. Slur spammers rarely stop if you ask them to nicely.
> am I welcome to loudly spout obscenity laden arguments against religion at your church next Sunday?
This is a thinly veiled threat. I feel unsafe. Many people on here have told me threats like this have gotten out of hand recently. This is intolerable behavior, you alt-right chud.
Per the server rules requiring civil conduct, for the safety of all of the comrades on FSE, Chicago will be nuked (we begin bombing in five minutes) and wjmaggos publicly denounced as a fascist in the server blocklist. Subsequent to this, we will begin pressuring other admins to do the same because if they federate with a fascist, they are literally using their resources to host fascist speech. 5minutes.mp3
anybody can come into a church, then you can remove them. that's pretty similar to a server blocking people after they are assholes. but if enough people did that, you'd want a way to screen them before they came in. if everyone had to wear a pin (denoting their instance etc) and much larger percentage with a certain pin were shitheads, I assume you'd keep them out.
the fedi is not really a public or private space but we know whose door they came in thru.
@wjmaggos@realcaseyrollins@p@Moon this is an insipid metaphor. What gay would not know to stay clear of Westboro? Do they hide the anti-gayness until a gay joins? Would gays want a gay who was dumb enough to come in through the back of the Westboro wardrobe?
imagine you must pass thru a church to get to the shared realm, but you're marked by that church till you exit. build your own church, but there's no other way in. Individuals can make others or everyone from a church disappear just for themselves. Church admins can do that for everyone that enters via their church.
don't enter via WestBoro and wonder why the churches that like gay people don't see you. use a less aggressive anti gay church if necessary.
Is church is a new concept for you? Like instances, churches will deal with it differently: an Amish church would very likely just take the abuse quietly and carry on, while our parish wouldn't suffer fools like that.
If you have open registration, it's as public as a church with the same abilities to boot people.
the gay person (a reality of some of humanity) gets on the city bus (the reality of humanity), but is then in the realm with people who got on after attending the Westboro church (the reality of some of humanity.)
reality provides less anonymity for the WestBoro attendee. reality greatly limits the number of WestBoro attendees the gay person has to deal with. my metaphor is much better than a bus.
@wjmaggos@realcaseyrollins@p@Moon your metaphor is insipid and obtusely abstracted from whatever point you were trying to make with it, so it's shit-equal to me bus.
@wjmaggos@realcaseyrollins@p@Moon also, how would reality provide less anonymity? If you get on the bus, and there are people on already, how do you know from where they boarded? Bus metaphor is a-okay. 👌
@jeremiah@wjmaggos@realcaseyrollins@Moon There's a much more direct parallel in email servers. One does not have an expectation that a mail server has a political leaning, but apparently the dude expects fedi servers to have political leanings and feels like politics is the best frame for analyzing normal human interactions.
The way he appears to think about it is more like "Don't let people from the bad part of town into this neighborhood. If you were born in the shitty part of town, wear a scarlet letter forever." The "which church you went to" metaphor is a bit contorted.
@wjmaggos@p@jeremiah@Moon I don’t think it should be assumed what your users are and aren’t okay with, especially if your instance is diverse and some of your used might be okay with some types of speech that others there aren’t.
But it kind of shows the weakness of the bus/church metaphor.
OTOH, you could search out trans lives matter t-shirts or pride pendants and point them out to your friends, you know, subway style. Stealing their phones and wallets would be akin to doxing them, depending on what you did with it.
search #trans here. go attack them with bullshit in your profile/avi. boost it to your asshole friends. start multiple profiles on multiple servers. repeat. maybe dox them.
that kind of shit is not possible on a fucking bus. IRL you can also beat them up but there's a decent chance somebody will hit back or you'll get arrested.
@realcaseyrollins@jeremiah@Moon I do not wish to deal with either of them and the reasons why are public. If you're aware of that (but apparently not able to remember why), you'd think that tagging them wouldn't serve a purpose besides kicking up drama. Is that the plan?
i find it interesting how hard it is for the bigger #Fediverse admins to get along. Like I’d presume that due to principles that you, @freemo, @alex, etc. should be able to get along with each other, but to my knowledge, y’all are arch nemesis for each other.
@mia@Moon@freemo@jeremiah@realcaseyrollins I don't know, it was a gun thread that resulted in the several days of nonsense at the end of which he threatened to sue :nada:.
@realcaseyrollins Gleason's a liability and a fed, Freemo is a humorless dick (and a fed) that threatens lawsuits over internet drama. They manufacture drama, I find them unpleasant on a personal level, and I've not seen any evidence that either has anything interesting to say, so that's it on a personal level. On a pragmatic level, I do not see an upside to associating with either of them.
So "That guy's retarded" is a casual dismissal, right? It's an attempt to not waste time on this.
You also keep talking but I don't think you read what I write, because you keep suggesting solutions to problems that I don't care about.
I don't want to play hall monitor and I think the presumption that anyone ought to be telling adults to behave themselves is part of the problem. Although I believe the instance-blocking behavior is absurd, I'm not trying to stop them. I would like them to stop lying, but you don't have a solution to that: it's intractable, they're just shitty people, and they believe nothing is immoral if it targets the outgroup.
It is the case that the people that cause trouble have very little to do with most of the instance-blocks FSE has gotten. If you want to understand this, it's the same reason the people that shriek about loli hentai use "pedophilia" as the grounds for their panic while ignoring the actual explicitly pedophile-friendly instances. The stated objections people have to FSE have nothing to do with the actual objections, and, as I have pointed out several times (each time with cititations and I have more), your insistence that these are people observing bad behavior and then acting is absurd.
Here, here's some more reading material: https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/12/17/the-toxoplasma-of-rage/ . Unlike the Searle article or Snyder v. Phelps or my small piece on what constitutes freedom of speech, this one is somewhat long but extremely relevant to the discussion of over-socialized clique behavior on the internet.
Further, these people take an active, over-socialized approach to maintaining their social hierarchy. FSE does not exist to build a community or prop up a social hierarchy. Please tell me why you think it is my place to try to tell adults how to behave.
Now, I am making the point moot by producing some software. I am tearing the building down and replacing it and there will not only be no gatekeeping but there will be no *possibility* of gatekeeping and no source-based filtering. If you're not going to read what I write, please just leave me to my work.
and some people want to be pissed on. most wouldn't let the guy who pisses on people without asking through their portal to the shared space, so it's understandable that others would be more wary of people who come through your portal. this sucks cause your portal is mostly for people into consensual watersports etc, who other portals forbid unfairly imo. while some will always be unfair to your portal users, screening will change your reputation over time.
please elaborate (or tell me you're trolling me). I've never been a forum user.
I should add that I deeply respect p and wish I had the time/focus to follow up on all his links and respond to all his posts. I try to get the gist and continue the conversation in a way most useful to everyone. sorry.
@wjmaggos@jeremiah@Moon@realcaseyrollins Well, I appreciate that but you know, I think we've talked past each other and I keep trying to say that. Subjectively, they're doing something ridiculous (and for bad reasons anyway), but it's not really causing me any problems: people that don't want to talk *anyway* have prohibited themselves from talking to us. They built the wall, fine. wall.gif
@wjmaggos@p@Moon@realcaseyrollins the kernel idea you argue for is that someone should be policing other people's expressions and regulating them.
The arguments vary, the metaphors are tortured in new and interesting ways, but the trajectory is always towards, "some of us should control all of us because of some of us."
The "us" is of course you so, "my definition of asshole / unacceptable should be the law."
Right, but the word in the context of lyrics by Black people is different than the usage I see around here a lot.
Decorum would interpret this. Maybe we have no problem with rap lyrics, or criticism of the diversity industry establishment, but we feel that no one should attempt to bully, provoke, or demoralize others by using racially charged language against them.
@amerika@wjmaggos@p@Moon i don't think it's appropriate to make a distinction because what black people want is no more relevant than what white or Chinese people want when it comes to the use of language and freedom of expression.
The point of decorum is that it is cultural, and it admits that there be some areas where people have different requirements.
For example, the stuff that was normal in alt.tasteless was probably not welcome in most other alt groups even.
As far as the weird real estate guy, my take on this is that it is government abuse. He wants to get good real estate cheap, so he moves in and then demands it fit him via the power of law.
> For example, the stuff that was normal in alt.tasteless was probably not welcome in most other alt groups even.
Okay, right, yes; I get what you mean.
> As far as the weird real estate guy, my take on this is that it is government abuse. He wants to get good real estate cheap, so he moves in and then demands it fit him via the power of law.
That, too would have been a smart move, but kind of risky.
In either case, I do not plan to compel FSE to accommodate hypothetical people, and very soon I won't even be able to.
@sickburnbro@Fever@mia@jeremiah@freemo@Moon@realcaseyrollins Yeah, I have read that it wasn't even symbolic of pestilence because it was a figure of speech; that is, the original word translated as "pale" ought to have been translated as "sickly". I haven't looked this up, YLT might have something to say about it.
> and I saw, and lo, a pale horse, and he who is sitting upon him -- his name is Death, and Hades doth follow with him, and there was given to them authority to kill, (over the fourth part of the land,) with sword, and with hunger, and with death, and by the beasts of the land.
If you want to wait for it to load, https://archive.org/details/analyticalconcor00younuoft/page/729/mode/1up has, on page 729 in the viewer, "green, pale, sallow" and a note that this is the word used in Rev. 6. 8. It's not that far-fetched; we say that someone has turned green in modern English and we mean basically the same thing, same way we do with "blue in the face".
sure, but that also means doing your best to abide by what others expect. we do it IRL constantly. there's a convo going on and they don't seem edgy etc and somebody jumps in to say die fag. if they're an account on your instance, ban or at least warn them. they can get another account (even on your server) where they only do that to people they know will find it hilarious.
imo their fun is attacking or they'd only do it on a private server. give them that.
Yeah, "I can't believe you just said that, this is worse than if a sacred cow had crucified a holocaust full of babies!" is an effect, producing an effect guarantees that something will be done if someone desires that effect.
@wjmaggos@amerika@p@Moon > that doesn't solve the problem for the people who will stop using the service if they see that regularly from different accounts.
How is this anyone's problem but theirs? You're quite right about sensitive users -- a lot of us came here to get away from them.
The rest of the centralized internet caters to them, so they're not missing out on anything except being triggered by people who've decided the lowest common denominator is no longer the deciding factor.
that doesn't solve the problem for the people who will stop using the service if they see that regularly from different accounts. as a person that wants more users here and a diverse range of perspectives, I'm stuck. block that server or lose out on users who don't want to see that. in general, you guys don't care to hear from those more sensitive users. I do. I think the more reasonable thing is to just get rid tiny percentage of obvious assholes.
> that doesn't solve the problem for the people who will stop using the service if they see that regularly from different accounts.
Are those people more or less interesting than the assholes?
Can you construct a rule that bans Fred Phelps but not a parody of Fred Phelps?
I mean that: this is a pointless discussion without an answer to that question. Banning a word throws out the Blazing Saddles baby with the David Duke bathwater. You cannot come up with a rule that can meet the requirements for a fair rule, but sitting down and trying is instructive.
A fair rule can be detected and enforced, the enforcement can be done evenly, a person can know *before* they do something if that thing will constitute a violation of the rule, nothing but a mistake of fact makes a mistake in detection, and it's not so onerous that it will be routinely ignored. Maybe the most important is whether a person can know before they do something whether that thing is against the rules or not: they can connect their action with the consequence. A rule that is routinely ignored also doesn't allow people to connect their actions with consequences: 99% of the time, nobody cares, but once in a while, someone will make a big deal out of it.
"Do as thou wilt, or maybe just don't if thou woudst not do as thou wilt but wouldst do something else entirely. I'm not telling adults what to do, it's none of my business until it starts to fuck up my server."
Their presumption that they are somehow the default and that we're "dark fedi" is a bad one, especially given that the guy that runs shitposter.club is here: shitposter.club was here before mastodon.social.
@wjmaggos@p@Moon@realcaseyrollins you nailed it: you want the world to bend to your point of view, and you represent the interests of people who can't imagine or won't bother moderating things for themselves.
Probably because it's more fun to be mad and whinge endlessly about being victimized than to just block it and move on.
On one hand, you have what you call assholes, and on the other hand, you have whinging sensitives, who, armed with moderation tools, demand severed linkages.
the argument kernel imo is that the design of the fedi means that if servers federate, what you do on your server can affect the experience for users on my server. so I will ask that you change your policies, and then act to best serve the interests of myself and my users imo based on what you choose to do. both of our options are limited so we negotiate. nobody is less free but people might need to switch servers.
> I think politics are boring and the left-right split is fictitious, manufactured for the sake of authoritarianism: is that a right-wing or left-wing alignment?
Green covers a somewhat different wavelength of colors until the Greeks began being able to recognize and denote the color blue. I sometimes see translators talk about χλωρός as green-yellow. Not to be confused with Ξάνθος which more properly means "yellow."
Homer makes frequent reference to the wine-colored sea.
@Zerglingman@Moon@amerika@jeremiah@wjmaggos ...Which is pointless, because they either can't see you, or they wouldn't have blocked FSE without that. I use acme and Go and can't follow Rob Pike. Hachyderm would have blocked us anyway because FSE's not "advertiser-friendly" but there's no need to go out of your way and cause me a problem.
> your user get to say mean shit to randos than randos not semi regularly see mean shit?
If you want the actual rate, this has been quantified, it's in the paper I posted. The answer is "No, this is a lie." Catch up.
> or he can bother people and most people will block your server.
Most people, as it turns out, do not. The entire "We're the majority" tactic that a few assholes use is the same tactic that Lenin/Stalin/Trotsky used by naming their party the "Bolshevik" ("Majority") and their political opponents the "Menshevik" ("Minority"). Pretending there is a popular mandate to appeal to is not only useless, it's irrelevant, and it's slimy. I don't see evidence of a
Most servers have not blocked FSE. The majority of those that have blocked FSE have done so on malicious hearsay which you insist on repeating even after I have not only said that it's malicious but have demonstrated it and provided links that you can verify independently. You have chosen to ignore evidence and repeat the lie. It's one thing to ignore my perspective and substitute your own: that's merely rude. Ignoring hard facts, though, is a propaganda tactic. It's used by people pushing an agenda, not by people that care about the words they are saying beyond their effect. Now, even if I give you the benefit of a doubt and say "Well, he's said that he doesn't have time to read those links", you persist in pushing a story that contradicts facts, and it's very difficult to assume good faith, especially since you've got time to participate in the thread but no time to read a handful of paragraphs or examine actual hard data. I get this from Nazis all the time: they insist something that contradicts facts, I present some of those facts, they persist in ignoring it and they continue pushing their story at me, because they cannot account for any of the facts presented. I'd like to avoid concluding that you are malicious: can you help me with this by paying attention to the numerous supported facts? You're clearly willing to speak with conviction and assert several facts, and I have seen no evidence for these facts but I have seen evidence to the contrary. If you don't care enough about what you're saying to actually look at facts, I've just got the one conclusion left, so please help me out. Here is a trivial one: you have insisted that every troll is right-wing (and declined to say what you mean when you say "troll"), but you can find some left-wing trolls: go talk to @hashi@detroitriotcity.com, for example, though that person may be a parody. Or @fuckracists, who was expected to be a parody but who turned out to be an alt of @SocialistStan, who is apparently sincere. This is before we get into the issue of the entire premise underlying everything you are saying: you apparently assign a central role to US/EU politics in all communication. I reject this entirely: as I said, politics bore me, the left/right distinction reflects propaganda more than reality, and this is an international network, with a lot of people here do not fit into either of those boxes. If you want to care about those boxes, that's your business, but I will decline until I've got some sort of indication that they matter.
Now, speaking of diversions, I said "this is a pointless discussion without an answer to that question." The question was, what is your best attempt at a rule that filters the assholes? And which assholes? I'd say that someone that harasses people for declining to block is a bigger asshole.
And, for the third time, they have walled themselves off, their fixation on blocks (as a surrogate, as they are unable to apply physical force to the people they dislike) is hurting them, it does not hurt me, and if they want to punch themselves in their collective dick, it's not my business, so I don't have much reason to care and if I'm assuming good faith, I am still putting in more effort to engage with you on this topic than you are putting in. That is the core of my complete lack of interest in altering anything about FSE: nothing I do will alter their relation to FSE because they are willing only to dictate, not converse. The #fediblock crowd has decided without listening or even looking and they do not care what I have to say: do I have a reason to listen to them? I don't want to jump the wall, I'm happy here: is there something inside the wall that I want? It matters as much to me as US passports being rejected by a country I don't plan to visit.
So, the conversation is moot *and* the goal is a goal I don't care about *and* I don't think you are reading what I write (or if you are, you're ignoring everything I say). I don't see a point in discussing this unless you are willing to discuss it, and even if so, I still don't think I've got a reason to care about it, and if I did care about it, it wouldn't alter anything. nicecrew.digital has instance-blocked my account, at my insistence: I don't think I've lost anything. Do I *want* for FSE to be unblocked by abdl.link or todon.nl or weirder.earth or monads.online? I honestly couldn't give a damn. I would like them to stop lying about FSE and lying about me personally (again, claiming I have threatened to murder them, or that I am a secret fascist/racist/whatever), but I don't really hold out much hope for that because they are bad-faith actors and any attempt on my part to appease them would be stupid. Is there a reason for me to care? the_blocks_and_their_consequences1.png the_blocks_and_their_consequences2.png with_blocks_or_against_them.jpg
it's more important that your user get to say mean shit to randos than randos not semi regularly see mean shit? in my dream world, everyone accepts that Fred is on your server talking his shit as long as he refrains from bothering people. or he can bother people and most people will block your server.
the fedi is like a public square, but also not like one. it took many years to figure these rules out in IRL. fedi norms are still evolving imo.
If Richard Stallman wasn't already kind of a horror meme this would be great fuel for a skin walker creepypasta released under... hmm... Creative Commons license. That'd get his blood pumping lol.
Anyways, I do remember χλωρός frequently having association with sickly and rotting things. I don't much recall χλωρός really being used in the connotation of verdant.
Here's the entry from the Big Liddel
χλωρός , ά, όν,
A.greenish-yellow, pale green, “χλωραὶ ῥῶπες” Od.16.47; “ὄρος . . χλωρόν” h.Ap.223; “χλωραὶ ἐλάται” Pi.Fr.167, E.Ba.38; “χλωραῖς ὑπὸ βάσσαις” S.OC673 (lyr.); “χλωρὰν ἀν᾽ ὕλην” E.Hipp.17; “δόνακι χλωρὸν Εὐρώταν” Id.Hel.349 (lyr.), cf. S.Ant.1132 (lyr.); also in Prose, “σίτου ἔτι χ. ὄντος” Th.4.6; “τὰ φυόμενα χ. τὸ πρῶτον εἶναι” Thphr.Sens. 78; ἡ χ. the green plaster, Androm. ap. Gal.13.470; χλωρὸς λίθος, = σμάραγδος, PHolm.5.10; of sea-water, Poet. ap. Plu.2.767f(cf. E.Fr. 1084); of other water, AP9.669.3 (Marian.): χλωρά, ἡ, green paint, as a stage-property to represent a river in scenery, Pap. in Eos. 32.30 (v/vi A. D.). 2. yellow, “μέλι χ.” Il.11.631, Od.10.234; ἀμφὶ χλωρὰν ψάμαθον on the yellow sand, S.Aj.1064; ᾠοῦ τὸ χ. yolk of egg, Zopyr. ap. Orib.14.61.1. II. generally, pale, pallid, “χλωρὸς ἀδάμας” Hes.Sc.231: most freq., 2. of persons, pale, “χλωρὸς ὑπαὶ δείους”
Il.10.376, 15.4; χ. Ἀχλύς (personified) Hes.Sc.265; “χλωροτέρα . . ποίας ἔμμι” Sapph.2.14; hence as an epith. of fear, “χλωρὸν δέος” Il.7.479, Od.11.43, etc.; “χλωρῷ δείματι” A.Supp.566 (lyr.), cf. E.Supp.599 (lyr.): in Medic. writers, yellow, biliouslooking, ὀφθαλμοὶ -ότεροι v. l. in Hp.VM10; “χρῶμα χ. ἴσχειν” Id.Prog. 24; “σῶμα . . οὔτε χ. ἀλλ᾽ ὑπέρυθρον” Th.2.49; also χ. πτύελος, οὖρον, Hp.Prog.14, VM10 (Comp.).
III. without regard to colour, green, i. e. fresh, opp. dry, esp. of wood, ῥόπαλον . . χλωρὸν ἐλαΐνεον of green olive-wood, Od.9.320, cf. 379; opp. αὖος, Hes.Op.743; “τὰ σφόδρα χ. ἄκαυστα” Arist.Mete.387a22; χ. ξύλα ib.374a5, al.; of various things, “χλωραὶ ἐέρσαι” Pi.N.8.40; τυρὸς χ. fresh cheese, Ar.Ra.559, Lys.23.6; of fish, fresh, not salted, Ath.7.309b; of fruit, fresh picked, IG22.1013.23, Dsc.1.113. 2. metaph., fresh, blooming, χλωρόν τε καὶ βλέποντα Trag. ap. Hsch. (perh. to be read in A.Ag.677 for καὶ ζῶντα καὶ β.); λειμὼν ἄνθεσι (sed fort. ἔρνεσι)“ θάλλων χλωροῖς” E.IA1297 (lyr.); “χλωρὸν γόνυ” Theoc.14.70; “χ. αἷαμα” fresh, living, S.Tr.1055, E.Hec.127 (anap.); χ. δάκρυ fresh, bursting tear, E.Med.906, cf. 922, Hel.1189; “χλωρὰ δακρύων ἄχνα” S.Tr.847 (lyr.); “οἴνου χλωραὶ σταγόνες” sparkling, E.Cyc.67 (lyr.). 3. metaph., unripe, “χ. καὶ ἄναιμα πράγματα” Gorg.Fr.16. (Not contr. fr. χλοερός but cogn. with it and χλόη.)
Perseus provides complete access to the digitized lexicon. You'd just click the little LSJ icon on the page to bring up the LSJ entry for this item. It's convenient.
People vote and then they shocked to find out that the people they put in power turn on them. Today its the Rs, but trust me... tomorrow its your team.
As long as you toe any line - I will samurai-sword you the first chance I get, knowing its my last chance.
@amerika@wjmaggos@jeremiah@Moon This is my thought, yeah. You can't get rid of David Duke without getting rid of Blazing Saddles.
Not just that, but you see people hop alts, change their names, etc. I think trying on a face and seeing how people react to that face is important for a yoof, otherwise they don't figure out how their society works. Maybe a teenager tries on David Duke: it's inadvisable, but so is anything a teenager does. (It's the major time of obvious bad decisions, then you get to spend the rest of your life on Byzantine faults.) You give "Because you're not allowed" as the only reason for not being something, people will do it anyway, but "Everyone will think you are a dickhead" is sufficient to deter most people from doing something that doesn't mesh with society. (The two notable exceptions being the actual dickhead, and the guy that is convinced he is correct. Actual dickheads are unavoidable and sometimes the guy that is convinced he's correct *is*. It's like an "Are you sure?" dialog, a social impediment.)
It's like Cunningham's Law, which I'm certain I've said something about in this thread but in any case cited recently: "The best way to get the right answer on the Internet is not to ask a question; it's to post the wrong answer." Likewise, the quickest way to convince a teenager that they should not become David Duke is to just let them be David Duke for a minute.
should it work this way with harassing people in real life too? let them do it and they'll figure out it's bad, no repercussions necessary to make that happen. and it's just too bad for our friends and family who have to deal with it.
online anonymity allows more dickheads. you can never get rid of D Duke or Blazing Saddles, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't keep working to distinguish between them and try out different methods to reasonably deal with the former.
> we also need to DISCREDIT the Socialist AI. > That's it. Let's go!
I believe the proper response to being given marching orders is to make really loud fart noises, but I don't know how to convey it quite as viscerally over text.
I don't think I have to do anything to "discredit" an over-hyped chatbot and I do not feel any pressure to do so.
@wjmaggos@p@amerika@jeremiah the majority is absolutely incapable of rendering fair judgment on this, people love to drag someone's ass for saying something wrong, totally not harassment.
@wjmaggos@amerika@jeremiah@p I try not to use slurs because they don't help make anything better so I actually agree with you somewhat, if someone just does drive-by slurs at people that's asshole behavior, and I have tried to end that practice on my server.
> As I said, on ActivityPub nothing ever gets done.
Good. Getting things done would interfere with the shitposting.
Is the point here to get some things done? This is a party, man, the problem that killed Twitter was when Twitter decided that it was Important, everything is Very Serious. Mike Monteiro was asked about linking to your Twitter account in a professional context and he said "No, Twitter's for dick jokes" and a few years later, he's raging about politics on there, everything's Really Fucking Important. Journalists make fun of "hashtag activism" and then a few years later, they're all doing it. Serious business. Advertiser friendly. A constant chorus sucking all of the joy out of life, singing as loudly as they can, "HOW CAN YOU ENJOY ANYTHING WHEN THE WORLD SUCKS?!"
@p@wjmaggos@amerika@jeremiah@FourOh-LLC monteiro is a great example of how hard it is to quantify assholes because I think he is a tremendous asshole, he's just good at wrapping it in fake civility.
nobody is saying they have to stop existing, or can't have another account on a fedi blocked server. just on servers that the admin doesn't want to be fedi blocked, don't tag people with shit. be considerate of what they might not want to see. like how we censor ourselves in different situations in real life. I'm fine with them saying nasty shit in their own posts or with people they know are fine with it on any server. they don't have to hide who they are etc.
@pwm@p@wjmaggos@amerika@jeremiah that's a different sort of thing and a different conversation, I think 4chan proved that shitting on your own floor to repel sensitive types still doesn't keep you from being co-opted.
@Moon@p@wjmaggos@amerika@jeremiah fighting the urge to call you a neighbor so hard. I'm not unconvinced of the pseudo-magical property of flagrant and frivolous usage of slurs to keep VC money away which is in my estimation the great satan of technology post-facebook. Could be a post-hoc justification but if you can ward off ads, and payment processors then you are safe from enshittification (thank you for reminding me of the existence of this term btw).
@pwm@amerika@jeremiah@p@wjmaggos I agree with whoever said that there needs to be romper rooms and pvp rooms. nothing wrong with safe spaces, they are great and important, the problem is that it shouldn't be every space, it shouldn't even be the default and people pushing for that are basically dishonest (not talking about anybody here.)
@amerika@jeremiah@p@pwm@wjmaggos the discourse is messed up because civility isn't safe space. safe space is where you go to undo damage, if you say "I have a problem" the response isn't "here's how to solve that problem" or "you're looking at it wrong" it's "I support you, let's get through it together." it is a basic human need and there needs to be places for it. but it does not (by design) facilitate constructive criticism, which is also necessary.
@Moon@p@wjmaggos@amerika@jeremiah That's a good point. maybe nothing lasts forever, not even whatever the opposite of a hugbox is. 4chan is an interesting case study but I think I can brush it away by saying it got too big and there were active interests to tire out moot, force a sale, and replace it with something more obviously business oriented. I think the pressure should be to keep the Internet big but its roosts small, so that in decentralization there is resilience. Keeping ads out by any means necessary is step one, because the second your community becomes a Business with a capital-B , you have lost it, as it has drawn the attention of the great eye of fire which will consume it. Behold my elaborate, post-hoc justification for saying any old horrible thing you want.
@pwm@p@wjmaggos@amerika@jeremiah this place is harder to co-opt because there's isn't a privileged class of moderators who can kick you off the entire network.
@Moon@p@wjmaggos@amerika@jeremiah I suspect it to be a case-study in the gluttony of the human spirit, seeking pleasure over pain. People like to hear "nice" things, and will seek them out over not-so-nice but also true things. Dieting and eating your veggies is hard, pigging out on delicious food no matter what it is, is not.
@Moon@p@wjmaggos@amerika@jeremiah Merely raising the on-boarding bar from "username and password in one official app designed by UX/UI gurus" is enough to gatekeep many, if you'll recall saltiness over twitter exiles being flummoxed by merely having to choose a server to sign up on.
@Moon@p@wjmaggos@amerika@jeremiah Yeah I uh think I read documentation for that like, once and then swiftly forgot about it. Seemed cool I think? There's definitely a happy balance, as in all things, moderation.
> should it work this way with harassing people in real life too?
"You are not allowed to do that to someone" is a different thing from "You are not allowed to believe or say that". Conflating beliefs with harassment is a mistake.
@Moon@amerika@jeremiah@wjmaggos I think it's a bad idea to treat "drive-by single gamer word reply spam" the same way as "proposals of very unpopular opinions". The instance-blocking happens due to the latter, @wjmaggos keeps replying to "They are banning bad opinions." with "You are condoning harassment!" and it's gotten hard to assume good faith.
> monteiro is a great example of how hard it is to quantify assholes because I think he is a tremendous asshole, he's just good at wrapping it in fake civility.
But he didn't say a gamer word, so he's fine: completely acceptable histrionics. He's punching up.
> shitting on your own floor to repel sensitive types
I prefer to call it the "komodo dragon strategy" (sounds cooler and less fecal) and I think it's a good strategy for repelling certain types. The anime and absurd shit and lack of censorship keeps a lot of awful people at bay. That doesn't stop you from being coopted: it doesn't even stop *all* the awful people. But it does stop a large number of them.
@Moon@amerika@jeremiah@pwm@wjmaggos I don't know, I think there are certain types that are incapable of understanding the concept of an inappropriate venue. You used to see that with religion a lot, you now see it with politics or PvP. "There's literally nothing more important than (the gospel of Jesus Christ|social justice|inequity|scary Jews|Ethan Ralph|the culture war|liberating pedophiles|executing pedophiles), and you are a terrible person for trying to stop me from demanding that it be inserted into every conversation."
@Moon@p@wjmaggos@amerika@jeremiah oh is that still this thread? sheeeeeesh I think I replied in it or have been reading it for like a week now. Serves me right from replying from the notifications tab, I suppose
> When the doing is just saying something, what's the difference?
This is discussed in Searle, which I posted. Here it is again. It is not hard to understand the concept: "I like sandwiches" versus "Make me a sandwich". searle75b.pdf
I've never said anybody can't believe anything. When the doing is just saying something, what's the difference? Should saying the same thing to someone online be considered more acceptable to the hearer than doing it in person?
That was the only thing under discussion; very early in the thread, you said "harassment" and I said I have no complaints if people filter that. I don't think anyone has advocated for it. You, on the other hand, said "You guys all think harassment is fine!"
No sir. I know many are blocking for bad opinions. I oppose that. What I'm arguing for is that we all embrace a policy of refusing to allow the harassment (on servers we don't want to be fedi blocked at least), but do allow the bad opinions. Then all come at light fedi making this case.
> a fedi server isn't a room, it's a portal to the shared space composed of the servers that federate with it.
"Call it a banana if you want."
See clip from @tomjennings from the BBS documentary. This argument has happened before in the 80s, it was a very similar situation. The difference is that the BBS was going to be geographically locked: who can you dial without incurring long-distance charges? Here it is not, but my position is exactly the same as before: instances don't matter, it's a box. I'm not going to tell adults how to act, and if they're ham-fisted enough to block servers instead of bad accounts (which, again, per the cited research, is a very small number even on servers that you are falsely accusing), and then they decline to even do the admin the courtesy of telling them "This guy is causing problems, we're going to block your server" then I am fine without them.
> pvp rooms are fine
Well, you can't stop them from existing but they're a blight.
> just don't expect any other server, much less most other servers, to be fine federating with that.
I have zero expectations of neurotic strangers. The thing I would like them to stop doing is hurling accusations and libel at the server and at me personally, but I do not even expect that. But you and I are here talking to each other, so we can address one thing at least: even if you view a server as a constructed community, there are plenty of people that do not view servers this way. I am one such person. Communities are self-organizing entities and a community that you "build" is going to be as soulless as mass-produced tract housing. Servers are inert. doesntmatter.mp4
a fedi server isn't a room, it's a portal to the shared space composed of the servers that federate with it.
romper/pvp rooms are fine but that idea would demand a fully defederated server or something like dark fedi. as I said, I'm all for that. a place where anything goes. just don't expect any other server, much less most other servers, to be fine federating with that.
> One of the most absurd misrepresentations of freedom of speech is that it is about flapping your mouth, which is to say, people will claim that anything that comes out of your mouth is covered. At no point in history has anyone advocated for the universal right to freedom of speech and meant this to also confer the right to burst someone's tympanic membrane by screaming at full volume into their ear. Obviously, nobody can mean that. > I encounter this objection surprisingly often, though. There's obviously a line between the free expression of opinions and actions carried out by speaking. This should be obvious from the terms used: "freedom of speech" is often referred to as "freedom of expression" to prevent this confusion.
yes, replying to someone you don't know with "die faggot" is different than "I understand your perspective but I think people like yourself are fags and it would be much better for everyone if you were to expire." it shouldn't be welcome on the larger fedi imo.
is "people filtering that" a server fedi blocking servers that host those users, or do you expect users to have to block those users after they post it, or server admins to only block those users after it gets reported?
@wjmaggos@p@amerika@Moon yes. people block what they don't want to see. Like in reality, they will encounter unpleasant smells, shit on the sidewalk, and gaudy nonsense. Because humans and the reality of humans.
I hope the poor dears survive and manage to hit the block button in time.
IRL gay people can hang out in gay neighborhoods to avoid most anti gay assholes. here they could hang out on gay servers but some think it would be wrong for that server to block servers full of people who regularly jump into threads with anti gay shit. makes total sense.
@mia@p@wjmaggos@amerika@jeremiah@Moon I am reading the thread from newest to oldest because that's how Pleroma front end works and DRC Bloat is unaccesible for some reason ( I asked @admin about it but I got no answer yet ).
@kumicota@Moon@amerika@jeremiah@wjmaggos Fedi is a video game where you smash that like, and the winner is whoever smashed that like the largest number of times before we all get arrested.
@dcc@Maholmire Those super-flat ones with the extra thick outlines that all the lefty mastodongs use. They come with Licensing Terms. :brandt:
When I found out about that, because FSE has a lot of stolen emchichos, I replaced "devil" with :devil: and "goblin" and "kobold" with Nethack screenshots: :goblin: :kobold:.
(I never played Postal. I saw the movie and I liked it until I found out that it had nothing to do with the game and this made me wonder why the hell Uwe Boll insists on just slapping a video game title on all of his movies.)
You can't win playing the cancel game because it can and will be used against you eventually.
It sucks when people tell you to kill yourself but at that point they have either lost the argument or they are responding to you telling them to do something they don't want to do. Dialogue has been shut down at that point, probably some element of rejection too.
Sometimes we do have to ask ourselves how our behaviour has led to the reactions that we get and how we can better respond next time if we want to minimise that. Sometimes it is them, sometimes it is us, and if we keep getting the same unpleasant experiences then it might be worth exploring what we're saying or doing to get those reactions. Even asking someone why they say what they do can be enlightening. I do find the concept of the filter to be interesting, because people that use it know that the poster will report them, block them or block their instance. That they will be rejected for it. They expect that. But if you don't do those things then that surprises them and could open dialogue up. But I suspect that this is going to get lost in translation even though this is the most common form from people on blocked instances.
We could instead be asking ourselves why people feel the need to filter in this way, what are they responding to and how can we bridge the gap if our goal is more people interacting that hold different opinions? It doesn't just happen without a cause.
Besides, just because someone is an arsehole towards me or a post I made or a thread I'm in, it doesn't mean they are an arsehole to others or all the time. Varying factors can play into it.
Sometimes people have just had a bad day or the topic triggered them. I prefer to be polite in return and to not insult, and maybe it gets resolved or talked out. Or maybe there is nothing further to contribute and so you leave the post alone. There are other ways to handle these situations than to isolate them.
Besides, why would I want to isolate them from others just because of my random experience? Better for me to handle it myself and to be responsible than to expect other people to do this for me when I have the tools and ability to handle it myself. Maybe not everyone is capable of doing this... but then how do we give them the confidence and skills to be able to handle it?
> what i want is more people here interacting with people they don't agree with
so try it. don't put conditions on it that turn off half the group up front. If the other half are turned off by the lack of conditions, then they don't want to interact with people they don't agree with and the purpose is futile.
I appreciate being polite when it comes to interactions but this doesn't always mean that I get to interact with people that don't agree with me. Some people are set in their ways and will other you even if you are polite simply for holding different viewpoints. You are the out-group. If you want to be a part of the in-group then you have to meet all these confusing conditions first and even if you do then your past can be used against you. You can't win this when conditions are put in place.
Besides that, why is it just one side that is expected to change?
Don't be an arsehole or else we'll block the instance you are on, forcing you to be isolated from your instance or your entire instance isolated from us. And arsehole is arbitrary and depends on what we think being an arsehole is so you have to jump through hoops to meet this requirement to interact with this instance and at our pace so you have to always be ready or else we assume bad faith. And you aren't allowed to object while we behave like arseholes and hold this against you. It's okay when we are abusive, lie about you and behave like arseholes with these conditions but not you. You have to change for us, you can't expect us to adapt to you.
I'm not worried about people who feel compelled to follow such commands. what I want is more people here interacting with people they don't agree with. Mean shit directed at people keeps that from happening. call me selfish but I think what I want is also good for society. kinda done.
Posts like yours make me think that you aren't going to get it and you aren't even attempting to or even listening to me. Why must you continue to other me? Why are you using language to describe me that is negative framing and I have said I do not agree with it? It shows your bias and it seems you cannot see this.
I did not come up with blocking arseholes. This has been a concept on social media for a very long time. I did this on corporate social media so it is nothing new. I don't think I have ever reported someone for being an arsehole to me to the mods when I used twitter or similar social media either.
I'm saying people need to argue with each other about what information is true or arguments make sense, not censor. I'm saying that assholes make this less likely to happen, cause people disengage. I guess I'm also saying that edgelord culture makes this less likely too, cause you don't want to be seen as defending the M5M etc.
I'm for censoring accounts that act like assholes cause they make hearing unpopular stuff, that isn't just mean/dumb, less likely.
refuse to push back against bullshit cause at least it's anti establishment, and therefore entertaining. who cares if that leads to more decent people doing dumb (sometimes dangerous) shit cause they're misinformed. only people I don't like are going to get hurt. till it's Ashli Babbitt, but we'll just blame the black cop, even though he was just doing his job that we're pissed other cops weren't doing the rest of the time. or maybe it's all another conspiracy.
casting people out IRL meant and can mean they couldn't just start a new account and be less of a jerk. on social media, it's not a big ask to say don't tag people who won't appreciate a post.
This is the concern. We do block some people on here but I hope that we are able to maintain a sense of responsibility and don't let it devolve further than it needs to be. Cancelling someone is isolating them, this is a serious punishment that should only be used as a last resort but too often people jump to using it first on fedi. Just think, we used to cast people out of the group as a punishment and to our brains this means certain death in the wilderness as it would have been harder to survive without a group. Therefore it requires more consideration, especially when this method is often used and a lot of people have come here after being cast out of the mainstream social media for various reasons or simply not feeling welcomed there.
@p@wjmaggos@amerika@jeremiah@Moon Technically, we are now all using the alternative. GNU Social used ostatus, that was the default on the fediverse. But now we use activitypub, which is at least the second fediverse. With that comes the divide between the blockbot side of mastodon and pretty much everyone else. So you are right, we are the default on this side... it is the blockbot users that single themselves out. It doesn't matter how big either side is. Dark fedi is their framing and it shows their bias and need to see the other side as bad which is counterproductive, especially if you want decorum.
I say this as someone who has been around since the GS days too so I have seen fedi change over time, for the worse from my perspective. More users doesn't make the experience better. It seems to have led to dividing the fediverse further and led to negativity.
A lot of people will post like an arsehole because it is a filter, they know what upsets the blockbot side of fedi. But this is often on specific posts where the blockbot side attempt to take control with their suggestions, suggest to block instances which causes drama or bring their mainstream social media attitudes to a space where people tried to escape from that or got booted out from that. This behaviour is fueled by both sides. Is it fair to expect just one side to be nice without even addressing why they behave as they do? There is reasoning behind it. Remember, the fediverse over time has attracted a lot of outcasts seeking to escape the mainstream or being forced out of it for not conforming to it. Bring the mainstream here, and where do they get to go?
@sim@p@wjmaggos@amerika@jeremiah@Moon >I say this as someone who has been around since the GS days too so I have seen fedi change over time, for the worse from my perspective. More users doesn't make the experience better. It seems to have led to dividing the fediverse further and led to negativity. Husky_1698043303455_4WTC9Y8IRH.…
We can already see which instance people come from. But to answer your question... I wouldn't want to discriminate based on instances like that. I prefer to handle individuals as individuals and block as necessary, and only block instances as a last resort. I'm going to have my biases and impressions, but I don't want to bring them into my moderating. I think we can do better than this.
Before mastodon blew up and we had the people set on blocking instances first, we had little problems with this. The worst was one instance blocking another over loli because of a legal question where the server was... and I think the tools were still being developed to figure out a better way to handle situations like that. Now you can get instance blocked for silly reasons. Even just one person saying something gets your whole instance blocked. People are too quick to instance block. Why would I want to cater to people that cause drama like this and I never know when they will turn against me next because they don't like me or something I say? I can be polite and it won't matter. I cannot appease them and doing so would become exhausting and unhealthy for me.
> don't you think obviously lefty, gay or ethnic minority accounts get more of that crap than you do?
Notably, the block-happy admins, who are almost all white and from the US or EU, block most Japanese instances. "Ethnic minority".
It is annoying that you maintain the presumption that the people on the other side of the wall get more harassment (go ask r000t, graf, etc.) or that they're not almost all white or that there is less diversity on this side, or that relative numbers for any of that are relevant to begin with. I have personally seen those people harass a gay black teenager, but nearly everyone on this side of fedi loves Jojo. Given that your definition of "harassment" is so broad that it includes anyone typing a mean word, I feel fairly certain that nearly all of the notifications I have gotten about the loli question qualify under your definition. This means that, per your definition, I have gotten more "harassment" on some days than these people get in a year; see the first attachment for an example.
So, who gets more "harassment", per your definition? You insist these things without quantifying them; that would be fine if you had any empirical evidence, but you do not have that, either.
Ultimately, I have figured out the sort of place I want to be: somewhere where I answer for myself and no one else is responsible for what I say, so no one has authority over what I say. Having figured that out, I set up this server, made my home on it, and opened registrations so that others could do the same if that kind of thing was appealing to them. I would not change it unless I changed my idea of what sort of place I want to be. "Want something else; people don't like that you want this." is insufficient: my sense of right and wrong matters more to me than grasping at a chance to be more popular with people whose opinions I do not care about. I feel bad for these people, I would like to help them; I do not feel the need to cater to their whims any more than I would if I were passing by Skid Row and the residents informed me that I was not welcome. They are not my peers, and I have no desire to get their approval, but they're free to keep doing what they are doing. Meridith Patterson expressed, more or less, the same sentiment from a somewhat gentler perspective:
> When weird nerds watch the cool kids jockeying for social position on Twitter, we see no difference between these status games and the ones we opted out of in high school. No one's offered evidence to the contrary, so what incentive do we have to play that game? Telling us to grow up, get over it, and play a game we're certain to lose is a demand that we deny the evidence of our senses and an infantilising insult rolled into one. > This phenomenon explains much of the backlash from weird nerds against "brogrammers" and "geek feminists" alike. (If you thought the conflict was only between those two groups, or that someone who criticises one group must necessarily be a member of the other, then you haven't been paying close enough attention.) Both groups are latecomers barging in on a cultural space that was once a respite for us, and we don't appreciate either group bringing its cultural conflicts into our space in a way that demands we choose one side or the other.
That is from her piece "When Nerds Collide" which is worth considering but given that you are a broadcast-only account and not interested in reading, and don't appear to have taken into consideration anything I said and have said, here is the link just in case someone else is interested: https://medium.com/@maradydd/when-nerds-collide-31895b01e68c .
To try to put it yet another way, the people that do #fediblock are like people that don't use bloatfe because they think it is unattractive: they are wrong, but they are not wrong in a way that makes my life worse.
A week is well past my limit on arguing a moot point with someone that continues repeating lies and does not bother addressing (let alone actually answering) any objections, but moves onto the next talking point. I do not wish to put effort trying to have a conversation and getting nothing but concern-trolling and talking points as a response. If you were interested in talking about these things instead of just pushing talking points, you would have done so at least once in the last week. (In general, I avoid people that want to converse in that manner, as a bot made of meat created by a father and mother is still as much a bot as one made from symbolic logic by a programmer: https://freespeechextremist.com/notice/AIB2yWD51ohVAc7ekK .) So I'm the hell out of this thread; see second attachment.
...And not only that, but I had to dig the text of this post out of a 2.6GB core file. The browser crashed and this was, I am certain a sign that I have wasted too much time on this topic. If that hadn't been possible to recover the text, I probably would have just muted without saying anything. (PROTIP: JS strings are UTF-16 in memory, so just running "strings" on the core won't help you, because 0x0070 will reside in memory as a 0x00 and a 0x70 (though which is first is a matter of endianness), meaning that the minimum length won't be met. `strings|grep` didn't work so I figured they must all be UTF-16. I thought about iconv but that would have required two passes (in case the browser doesn't align UTF-16 on 2-byte boundaries) and I don't trust iconv to begin with and all the text I put here was ASCII anyway, so I know how to do the conversion: delete every other byte. `strings -n 1 core | tr -d '\n' | sed 's/\./.\n/g' ` works if you don't mind a lot of manual editing after managing to extract it. If I were doing it again I probably would have skipped every other byte and run strings on each half. `time sh -c "strings -n 1 core | tr -d '\n' | sed 's/\./.\n/g' > /tmp/x"` yields 36 seconds, give or take. I can't come up with a good way to do `#include <stdio.h>\nint main(int c, void *v){FILE *f[2] = {stdout, stderr}; int r; for(r=getchar(); r!=EOF&&r>0; r=getchar())putc(r,f[(c++)&1]); return 0;}` in the shell without taking two passes, but if you toss in a couple of calls to popen()/execve() and filter both stdout/stderr instead of just writing them directly, then that ought to have better throughput and let us avoid the `tr -d` hack, but we're out of one-liner territory by that time. Trying to figure out a reasonably efficient way to get the contents of a <textarea> out of a seamonkey core dump is more fun than bashing my head against the "Please understand that we do not want their approval" wall, so anyone with thoughts on *that* should please tag me in a different thread because bloat treats muted threads the same way Stalin treated friends that fell out of favor.) notifications_about_the_loli_question.png thread_muting_you_promised.png
I wasn't calling you an edgelord but the group. you're on a server called shitposter.
you got harassed a lot by one person, even though you're not public with personal details. you can block or mute them. again, my focus is on the general user who wants to express all parts of themselves and not have to constantly deal with crap from lots of different people.
getting admin notifications is not the same as regular folks getting constant shit.
If this instance wasn't blocked by a lot of the blocklists, I would most likely be harassed by that part of mastodon as I have been at least once. Made to feel unwelcome... so unwelcome that one guy wanted me to leave the planet. Which is a roundabout way of saying that he wanted me to die without saying it. Even though I have been on the fediverse longer than they have been.
I'm mostly left alone because I don't stir up a lot of drama, I don't make my identity out of physical traits. I don't make a big deal out of my sexuality or anything like that. I don't make things obvious in a bio because I'd rather people focused on my posts than a bio or traits that I have no control over. I know what people are like on both sides of the divide and being more of a moderate on many things makes me not very liked by both sides. Even maggos thinks that I'm some sort of edgelord for stating facts about the past of fedi and my experiences of it. I cannot change the past or the facts to not be viewed as an edgelord so once again I am condemned and othered.
I wouldn't change being on this side even though I don't really fit in. It's probably more accurate that I'm a part of a third group, because I long for the days of GS instead of all this crap I have had to endure since mastodon came along. Mastodon changed the culture of the fediverse, made it a lot more closed off and thus less welcoming. It's just a different culture than I am used to and if I had to adhere to it then I would become very anxious about saying the wrong things. As a 'sensitive' person, I actually need other people to have tolerance for my differences in opinions and to have the freedom to express those views and for people to let me be there. But I find this more in circles where freedom is a priority over catering to sensitivities which seems counterproductive but anxiety works that way. I can't say that I ever feel represented by groups that claim to represent people with my traits or experiences either. So I am left behind and even marginalised for holding the wrong opinions.