Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   Damon (damon@pebble.social)'s status on Tuesday, 26-Dec-2023 02:51:02 JST Damon

   • Tim Chambers

   @tchambers I’m not sure why you’re concerned about content moderation there as opposed to here when everything is manual here. Bluesky has content labels built into the platform, will offer moderation services via different providers and they use a company called Hive. I feel that’s more than what’s being done on Fedi. Nostr I completely agree with

   • AP-AT-Bridge Group repeated this.
   • Embed this notice
     Tim Chambers (tchambers@indieweb.social)'s status on Tuesday, 26-Dec-2023 03:09:04 JST Tim Chambers

     in reply to

     @Damon I’m unclear if content on AT can be *removed*, rather than just labeled …labels that end users may or may not filter. Or if one admin can remove then can another server admin has agency to fediblock if they disagree? If gab.com adopted AT could it be mass blocked or just partially labeled or filtered?

     AP-AT-Bridge Group repeated this.
   • Embed this notice
     Tim Chambers (tchambers@indieweb.social)'s status on Tuesday, 26-Dec-2023 03:36:15 JST Tim Chambers

     in reply to

     @Damon I read this doc (maybe misread it?) as all about labeling and end user filters…not about removing content so no one regardless of filters see it.

     AP-AT-Bridge Group repeated this.
   • Embed this notice
     Damon (damon@pebble.social)'s status on Tuesday, 26-Dec-2023 03:36:16 JST Damon

     in reply to

     • Tim Chambers

     @tchambers It’s the same on the Fedi. It takes a coordinated effort to remove content. Most content is just hidden. Every users filters will be different just like here. Illegal content won’t typically make it past the filters. If Gab was on AT then the PDS would be blacklisted by the relay and their content sent after the block wouldn’t make it through. My understanding is that users will be able to block domains.

     https://blueskyweb.xyz/blog/4-13-2023-moderation

     AP-AT-Bridge Group repeated this.
   • Embed this notice
     ch0ccyra1n (ch0ccyra1n@emeraldsocial.org)'s status on Tuesday, 26-Dec-2023 04:18:24 JST ch0ccyra1n

     in reply to

     • Tim Chambers

     @tchambers @Damon is preventing people from seeing things regardless of filters a good thing? I thought the point of a federated network was to enable greater user freedom and interoperability. Like, at the very least it should be possible for users to opt out of individual moderation decisions made by admins, since sometimes they're made for petty personal reasons rather than being in the interests of their users.

     AP-AT-Bridge Group repeated this.
   • Embed this notice
     Tim Chambers (tchambers@indieweb.social)'s status on Tuesday, 26-Dec-2023 04:18:24 JST Tim Chambers

     in reply to

     • ch0ccyra1n

     @ch0ccyra1n @Damon CSAM, spam, hate malware links,hate speech, threats, terrorist content, etc at the very least would be things as an admin I would posit need removing not just tagging….

     AP-AT-Bridge Group repeated this.
   • Embed this notice
     ch0ccyra1n (ch0ccyra1n@emeraldsocial.org)'s status on Tuesday, 26-Dec-2023 04:41:32 JST ch0ccyra1n

     in reply to

     • Tim Chambers

     @tchambers @Damon my point is that oftentimes admins are little dictators and feel they should have absolute reign over their users. The fediverse implementations as they exist right now seem to reflect this idea, as they give admins total control with basically no accountability. I would prefer being able to opt-in to some things, like for example if an instance admin decides to block a transfem instance (because this keeps happening), as a user I would want to be able to bypass the admin's block without having to migrate instances which is currently a bit of a messy process. There's a friend of mine who's on an instance that blocks my instance and we're unable to interact with or follow each other because of that, and this is the exact situation that I think needs a solution, because as it stands, implementations of moderation in fediverse software make the false assumption that all admins act in good faith.

     AP-AT-Bridge Group repeated this.
   • Embed this notice
     Tim Chambers (tchambers@indieweb.social)'s status on Tuesday, 26-Dec-2023 04:48:27 JST Tim Chambers

     in reply to

     • ch0ccyra1n

     @ch0ccyra1n @Damon You are right - in Masto nets the main accountability is users of the server can vote with their feet and leave.

   • Embed this notice
     Tim Chambers (tchambers@indieweb.social)'s status on Tuesday, 26-Dec-2023 05:51:07 JST Tim Chambers

     in reply to

     @Damon Yes, if one admin can’t “fedi block” or something like that from another admin they disagree with over deleting content on that other server, not sure then how that isn’t a big loophole. Or wouldn’t same apply to multiple relay owners? And am unclear who manages accounts but think that is at the PDS level? If so then same question for fediblocking other server’s accounts. May be solid answers to those questions but that’s where I’m blurry.

   • Embed this notice
     Damon (damon@pebble.social)'s status on Tuesday, 26-Dec-2023 05:51:08 JST Damon

     in reply to

     • Tim Chambers

     @tchambers sorry I should’ve made clear that was in addition to my comments. Ultimately, outside of the platform filters it boils down to the admins & then users. Content that isn’t blacklisted & makes it past filters can be deleted by admins and users. As far as admins blocking other PDS I’m not sure but I do know users can still get access to that blocked content if they wanted. The illegal content wouldn’t typically make it past the platform filters

     AP-AT-Bridge Group repeated this.
   • Embed this notice
     FinchHaven sfba (finchhaven@sfba.social)'s status on Tuesday, 26-Dec-2023 07:31:47 JST FinchHaven sfba

     in reply to

     • Tim Chambers
     • ch0ccyra1n
     • AP-AT-Bridge Group

     @ch0ccyra1n

     Trying to figure out why I keep seeing this thread when I don't follow any of the recent participants and it's not using any hashtags I Follow

     Turns out that it's being boosted by "AP-AT-Bridge Group" -- which I *do* Follow

     Damn Groups are spammy reply bots that saturate the Home feed of everyone who Follow them -- even when they're not participating in a particular thread, or even when a particular thread has wandered *way* off-topic

     Not at all the first time this has happened, either

     Solution: Unollow spammy reply-bot group @activitypubblueskybridge

     ahhh...

     Timeline cleanse

     cc @tchambers @Damon