Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   Nathan Schneider (ntnsndr@social.coop)'s status on Monday, 01-Jan-2024 00:47:10 JST Nathan Schneider

   • In #Flancia we'll meet

   @flancian I thinking "limit" option is the best choice for us, and I think that prevents us from being a signatory.

   • Embed this notice
     In #Flancia we'll meet (flancian@social.coop)'s status on Monday, 01-Jan-2024 01:49:35 JST In #Flancia we'll meet

     in reply to

     @ntnsndr thanks for your input -- I think I agree!

   • Embed this notice
     Nathan Schneider (ntnsndr@social.coop)'s status on Tuesday, 02-Jan-2024 10:34:31 JST Nathan Schneider

     in reply to

     • In #Flancia we'll meet
     • three word chant

     @flancian @3wordchant Unfortunately I think there is need for treating Threads a bit differently than other instances, given that is so large and varied. Despite its failures of enforcement and policy, there is at least a bare-bones policy against hate speech, which distinguishes it from platforms that actively encourage such things. https://help.instagram.com/477434105621119?ref=igtos&helpref=faq_content

     The problems it poses should be weighed against the benefits, esp. enabling our members to reach a larger network of people.

   • Embed this notice
     In #Flancia we'll meet (flancian@social.coop)'s status on Tuesday, 02-Jan-2024 10:34:32 JST In #Flancia we'll meet

     in reply to

     • three word chant

     @3wordchant @ntnsndr yes, fair. I may be holdling Threads.net to a lower standard because I "want" the Fediverse to work for all those potential people. I am asking myself how would I react as part of my community working group oncall if someone suggested we ban an instance where a few users post bee links but others seem 'normal' -- I think I would be on the fence about a full instance ban I would definitely suspend the account+forward to the instance.

   • Embed this notice
     three word chant (3wordchant@social.coop)'s status on Tuesday, 02-Jan-2024 10:34:40 JST three word chant

     in reply to

     • In #Flancia we'll meet

     @flancian and I strenuously disagree with you that "comedy" is an exception to our rule about "offensive, harmful, or abusive comments or insults, particularly in relation to diverse traits". If I started posting racist jokes on social.coop I would expect to be moderated heavily and quickly. (Not to mention that the Bee article is just profoundly unfunny and unoriginal…)

     CC @ntnsndr

   • Embed this notice
     In #Flancia we'll meet (flancian@social.coop)'s status on Tuesday, 02-Jan-2024 10:34:42 JST In #Flancia we'll meet

     in reply to

     • three word chant

     @3wordchant @ntnsndr the Babylon Bee case has the 'comedy' bit so I think it should probably be treated separately (pending more information). And it should probably come with a content warning in any case as it was triggering. But I think I need to know more about the site and whether all their articles are as harmful and unfunny as that one or it was just a greatest miss? Of course this is a first reaction from a position of privilege

   • Embed this notice
     In #Flancia we'll meet (flancian@social.coop)'s status on Tuesday, 02-Jan-2024 10:34:43 JST In #Flancia we'll meet

     in reply to

     • three word chant

     @3wordchant @ntnsndr yikes

     I didn't know [[cozymythra]] but they should be banned/suspended IMHO. I'd wager one of the ways to get that done would be to use the existing Fediverse moderation channels if Threads complies with them. If such accounts stay up by the time they're widely federating, I'd say at that point we cut lines by default. But until then I'd rather work with Threads admins (who are they?) so this trash doesn't get to the Fediverse.

   • Embed this notice
     three word chant (3wordchant@social.coop)'s status on Tuesday, 02-Jan-2024 10:34:45 JST three word chant

     in reply to

     • In #Flancia we'll meet

     @flancian thanks for the reply, and for being open to learning about this together.

     Here, from a brief internet search:

     Holocaust denier and white supremacist using a racial slur: https://www.threads.net/@cozymythra/post/CuWJLJKMGAR

     Anti-Jewish conspiracy theory: https://www.threads.net/@cozymythra/post/CuVhrONvnPt

     Anti-trans bigotry: https://www.threads.net/@thebabylonbee/post/CuhwfG9vZwi

     More anti-trans bigotry, calling trans people "groomers": https://www.threads.net/@gaysagainstgroomers

     (1/3)

     CC @ntnsndr

   • Embed this notice
     In #Flancia we'll meet (flancian@social.coop)'s status on Tuesday, 02-Jan-2024 10:34:46 JST In #Flancia we'll meet

     in reply to

     • three word chant

     @3wordchant @ntnsndr of course no tolerance for fascists goes without saying?

   • Embed this notice
     In #Flancia we'll meet (flancian@social.coop)'s status on Tuesday, 02-Jan-2024 10:34:48 JST In #Flancia we'll meet

     in reply to

     • three word chant

     @3wordchant @ntnsndr in general I just want to try to think first, as a community, of the large number of *people* who are in [[threads]] because that's where they friends are, for example -- and how to help them onboard to the #Fediverse as well as we can!

     I would rather their first contact is with friendly open people and groups like those at #socialcoop

   • Embed this notice
     In #Flancia we'll meet (flancian@social.coop)'s status on Tuesday, 02-Jan-2024 10:34:49 JST In #Flancia we'll meet

     in reply to

     • three word chant

     @3wordchant @ntnsndr thank you so much for raising this point!

     I am unaware of the fraction involved, and you're right I should be made aware. I am also unaware in detail of the position of [[threads]] w.r.t. blocking well-defined subsets of users en masse, which is the direction I think we should go in in the general case of very large instances that cater to large diverse populations while maintaining a reasonable approximation of a rational pro-social ethical stance in the case of conflicts.

   • Embed this notice
     three word chant (3wordchant@social.coop)'s status on Tuesday, 02-Jan-2024 10:34:52 JST three word chant

     in reply to

     • In #Flancia we'll meet

     @flancian @ntnsndr I'm curious: are you unaware of the huge volumes of content on Threads which is against the social.coop rules / code of conduct? or do you think Facebook deserves an exception to defederation for some reason?

   • Embed this notice
     Nathan Schneider (ntnsndr@social.coop)'s status on Tuesday, 02-Jan-2024 10:37:50 JST Nathan Schneider

     in reply to

     • In #Flancia we'll meet
     • three word chant

     @flancian @3wordchant I don't think we have much leverage against Threads by refusal to federate with our few hundred members. In contrast, being visible on threads could help more people there see the option of doing social media cooperatively.

     Unlike a space like Gab, most people are joining Threads simply by default, and are not directly associating with the accounts you mention.

     I think limiting, is an appropriate compromise.

   • Embed this notice
     three word chant (3wordchant@social.coop)'s status on Tuesday, 02-Jan-2024 10:40:17 JST three word chant

     in reply to

     • In #Flancia we'll meet

     @ntnsndr thanks for the answer. Do you agree that this special-case weighing is a departure from our established Federation Abuse Policy, and that until s.c makes a change to that policy, that the status quo should be that Threads should be defederated based on " fails to enforce policies to deal with hate speech", and the (many) documented instances of Facebook failing to enforce their Community Guidelines?

     CC @flancian

   • Embed this notice
     three word chant (3wordchant@social.coop)'s status on Tuesday, 02-Jan-2024 10:43:17 JST three word chant

     in reply to

     • In #Flancia we'll meet

     @ntnsndr I don't see how the implication that we'd federate with Gab if it had a few million more non-bigoted users is in line with s.c's Federation Abuse Policy.

     Folks who want to do outreach to Threads (or Gab) users are completely able to sign up for accounts on those platforms if they like; going back to "balance" it seems obvious that s.c users' safety is more important than making life slightly more convenient for that subset of users who want to evangelise in that way (1/2)

     @flancian

   • Embed this notice
     Nathan Schneider (ntnsndr@social.coop)'s status on Tuesday, 02-Jan-2024 11:12:03 JST Nathan Schneider

     in reply to

     • In #Flancia we'll meet
     • three word chant

     @3wordchant @flancian I think it is a good point that this may require a policy change.

     Since Gab does not have a recognizable hate speech policy, no, I don't think a large number of users there would change our approach.

     I think the availability of a tool like limiting allows us to make an appropriate choice. In my view social media should never be entirely on-or-off, just like social life should not be. People are complex, and the fediverse should reflect that.

   • Embed this notice
     three word chant (3wordchant@social.coop)'s status on Tuesday, 02-Jan-2024 11:12:05 JST three word chant

     in reply to

     • In #Flancia we'll meet

     @ntnsndr a core strength of the fediverse, and part of the explicit agreement with s.c users, has been to have better moderation (and thus more community safety) than corporate equivalents. Twitter has been a great example of the importance of upholding standards of behaviour, through the rapidly increasing toxicity on the platform after those standards were relaxed in the name of including problematic voices (2/2)

     CC @flancian

   • Embed this notice
     Nathan Schneider (ntnsndr@social.coop)'s status on Tuesday, 02-Jan-2024 11:14:42 JST Nathan Schneider

     in reply to

     • In #Flancia we'll meet
     • three word chant

     @3wordchant @flancian simple shunning (like sanctions, etc) tends to do more harm than good in other aspects of social life. I think outright banning is less than ideal online too. As the fediverse evolves, I hope the tools improve for enabling self-defense, collective action, and more fine-grained accountability.

   • Embed this notice
     Nathan Schneider (ntnsndr@social.coop)'s status on Tuesday, 02-Jan-2024 14:31:01 JST Nathan Schneider

     in reply to

     • In #Flancia we'll meet
     • MJ
     • three word chant

     @jotaemei @3wordchant @flancian I think our rules and moderation team are wise enough to detect the difference between affirmation and critique.

     Thanks for these points.

   • Embed this notice
     MJ (jotaemei@social.coop)'s status on Tuesday, 02-Jan-2024 14:31:03 JST MJ

     in reply to

     • In #Flancia we'll meet
     • three word chant

     @3wordchant What do we gain in safety by defederating that we wouldn’t gain by limiting?

     If we limit, then we will not see any Threads posts in the federated TL. If SC users decide to follow individual Threads accounts and boost any toxic bigotry into local, they’ll be in violation of our own internal codes of behavior and will be dealt with.

     This does raise a new Q though. Are we in violation of rules if we quote boost something in order to critique it? Are CWs sufficient?
     @ntnsndr @flancian

   • Embed this notice
     MJ (jotaemei@social.coop)'s status on Tuesday, 02-Jan-2024 15:06:11 JST MJ

     in reply to

     • In #Flancia we'll meet
     • three word chant

     @ntnsndr Yes, I expect as much from our rules and moderation team, but I was thinking still about how even quote boosted posts could be triggering for some members, and if we should have some guidelines for those cases. @3wordchant @flancian

   • Embed this notice
     three word chant (3wordchant@social.coop)'s status on Wednesday, 03-Jan-2024 12:52:35 JST three word chant

     in reply to

     • In #Flancia we'll meet

     @ntnsndr there's evidence to suggest that sanctions are effective at reducing harmful behaviour¹; it doesn't simply migrate elsewhere when communities are banned in one place. For me (and by my reading of s.c's Federation Abuse Policy), that applies equally to "Facebook should ban hate groups" and "s.c should not federate with Facebook until they enforce their rules against harmful behaviour" (1/2)

     ¹https://techcrunch.com/2017/09/11/study-finds-reddits-controversial-ban-of-its-most-toxic-subreddits-actually-worked/

     CC @flancian

   • Embed this notice
     Nathan Schneider (ntnsndr@social.coop)'s status on Wednesday, 03-Jan-2024 21:14:58 JST Nathan Schneider

     in reply to

     • In #Flancia we'll meet
     • three word chant

     @3wordchant @flancian right, I know the studies and evidence. But that is based on the current tools available in online life, where censorship and exile are basically all the tools allow. I have argued with others to explore better options, eg: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/20563051221126041

   • Embed this notice
     three word chant (3wordchant@social.coop)'s status on Wednesday, 03-Jan-2024 21:14:59 JST three word chant

     in reply to

     • In #Flancia we'll meet

     @ntnsndr more evidence about the efficacy of deplatforming far-right groups: https://www.idz-jena.de/fileadmin/user_upload/Hate_not_found/IDZ_Research_Report_Hate_not_Found.pdf

     CC @flancian

   • Embed this notice
     three word chant (3wordchant@social.coop)'s status on Thursday, 04-Jan-2024 09:53:15 JST three word chant

     in reply to

     • In #Flancia we'll meet

     @ntnsndr thanks for the paper, I'll read it as soon as I can.

     Meanwhile, I fully agree with you that it will be helpful to have better tools.

     In the mean-time, while those tools are built, and given that you are familiar with the evidence of deplatforming in reducing harmful behaviour, why do you think it is better not to use the (sure, blunt) tools available? (1/2)

     CC @flancian

   • Embed this notice
     Nathan Schneider (ntnsndr@social.coop)'s status on Thursday, 04-Jan-2024 10:27:49 JST Nathan Schneider

     in reply to

     • In #Flancia we'll meet
     • three word chant

     @3wordchant @flancian perhaps. That's why we have had discussions in the co-op about this for months. But the question cuts both ways. For some dynamics of marginalization, being cut off from the wider world is a privilege. For instance, I can only prioritize S.c these days because I no longer have a job that correlates my income to social media reach.

   • Embed this notice
     three word chant (3wordchant@social.coop)'s status on Thursday, 04-Jan-2024 10:27:51 JST three word chant

     in reply to

     • In #Flancia we'll meet

     @ntnsndr Do you think there might be some component of personal privilege in your preference for this approach, and do you see any potential exclusionary impact in applying that preference to a community space that intends/claims to be welcoming to people who face more marginalisation than you do? (2/2)

     CC @flancian

   • Embed this notice
     Nathan Schneider (ntnsndr@social.coop)'s status on Thursday, 04-Jan-2024 22:27:12 JST Nathan Schneider

     in reply to

     • In #Flancia we'll meet
     • MJ
     • three word chant

     @3wordchant @flancian @jotaemei I think the basic fact of the matter is that moderation at that scale is a fool's errand. You're always going to be either too restrictive or not restrictive enough for huge numbers of people. That's the beauty of the fediverse—we can be in a global network with more fine-grained moderation choices at the server level.

   • Embed this notice
     three word chant (3wordchant@social.coop)'s status on Thursday, 04-Jan-2024 22:27:13 JST three word chant

     in reply to

     • In #Flancia we'll meet
     • MJ

     @flancian Exactly. In February, Facebook will celebrate 20 years of having had the opportunity to set up effective moderation. The parent company's 2022 revenue was over $116 billion; Instagram (the business unit of which Threads is a part) had estimated revenue over $50 billion the same year. I think it's very fair to say that they have had a huge opportunity to improve their content standards, if they were going to.

     CC @jotaemei @ntnsndr

   • Embed this notice
     In #Flancia we'll meet (flancian@social.coop)'s status on Thursday, 04-Jan-2024 22:27:15 JST In #Flancia we'll meet

     in reply to

     • MJ
     • three word chant

     @3wordchant @jotaemei @ntnsndr now, if once threads has set up moderation/admin communication channels harmful accounts stay up... then my position about them will change.

     You pointed out earlier that this position might be inconsistent/irrational as the onus of work should be on them given their track record. That's fair. I'm still processing this and I might change my default position because of this.

   • Embed this notice
     In #Flancia we'll meet (flancian@social.coop)'s status on Thursday, 04-Jan-2024 22:27:16 JST In #Flancia we'll meet

     in reply to

     • MJ
     • three word chant

     @3wordchant @jotaemei @ntnsndr My (surely privileged, tech-bro-influenced position) is currently "open web first", and if someone doesn't want their posts to be seen widely they should use a non-open visibility setting.

     This doesn't mean I think we shouldn't defederate with actively fascist instances, or we shouldn't work to improve the paltry visibility settings we have now in Mastodon. We should do both. It's just threads doesn't seem like a fascist/troll instance to me, and I've seen plenty.

   • Embed this notice
     In #Flancia we'll meet (flancian@social.coop)'s status on Thursday, 04-Jan-2024 22:27:17 JST In #Flancia we'll meet

     in reply to

     • MJ
     • three word chant

     @3wordchant @jotaemei @ntnsndr On the principle of minimizing/obstructing harm: this point is of course valuable but it also reminds me of many conversations I've had about scraping the Fediverse. In the end I think there might be a philosophical gap here between camps 'the Fediverse should be part of the open web first' and 'the Fediverse should be a walled garden first' -- a more ethical and federated one, but a walled garden in the end.

   • Embed this notice
     In #Flancia we'll meet (flancian@social.coop)'s status on Thursday, 04-Jan-2024 22:27:19 JST In #Flancia we'll meet

     in reply to

     • MJ
     • three word chant

     @3wordchant @jotaemei @ntnsndr full disclosure: I am currently not into adopting authorized fetch in Social.coop either. IIUC it makes federation significantly more complex to implement, in particular for smaller/new servers (that don't run Mastodon). I'm happy to be shown wrong here though, maybe I am over-estimating the barriers to federation it would add.

   • Embed this notice
     three word chant (3wordchant@social.coop)'s status on Thursday, 04-Jan-2024 22:27:20 JST three word chant

     in reply to

     • In #Flancia we'll meet
     • MJ

     @flancian "authorized fetch" is part of what you're describing, and I hope its adoption continues to increase.

     As for "you can still see the content on the web", sure, but there's a wide zone between "technically impossible" and "absolutely trivial to do" – surely you agree that putting *any* friction in the way of the bigots who demonstrably exist on Threads will reduce the amount of harm caused, even if not to zero?

     CC @jotaemei @ntnsndr

   • Embed this notice
     In #Flancia we'll meet (flancian@social.coop)'s status on Thursday, 04-Jan-2024 22:27:21 JST In #Flancia we'll meet

     in reply to

     • MJ
     • three word chant

     @3wordchant @jotaemei @ntnsndr

     - On boosts as a danger/weapon: I'm sorry but I don't see how federation makes the problem significantly worse for what amount to public web posts that can already be scraped, etc. Maybe a visibility rule to 'only show to logged in users from instances in a user-kept allowlist' would be needed for such cases?

     Essentially user-defined per-post federation allowlists might be needed in the long term.

   • Embed this notice
     In #Flancia we'll meet (flancian@social.coop)'s status on Thursday, 04-Jan-2024 22:27:22 JST In #Flancia we'll meet

     in reply to

     • MJ
     • three word chant

     @3wordchant @jotaemei @ntnsndr these are good examples, thank you. Playing devil's advocate here a bit:

     - The telephone can be used to organize a harassment campaign. Should numbers not be able to call each other freely because of this? Should the government tap all lines because of this? My gut feel says no to both. Does this intuition not apply here because of speed or some other factor in this particular network? I'm unsure.

   • Embed this notice
     three word chant (3wordchant@social.coop)'s status on Thursday, 04-Jan-2024 22:27:24 JST three word chant

     in reply to

     • In #Flancia we'll meet
     • MJ

     @jotaemei off top (others with more knowledge of ActivityPub might be able to think of further examples), defederating would prevent Threads users from organising harassment campaigns invisibly in replies to s.c users, and prevent s.c. users' content from reaching unexpected audiences of hate groups on Threads by being boosted (or whatever Threads calls it there).

     CC @ntnsndr @flancian

   • Embed this notice
     three word chant (3wordchant@social.coop)'s status on Thursday, 04-Jan-2024 22:42:27 JST three word chant

     in reply to

     • In #Flancia we'll meet
     • MJ

     @ntnsndr while I agree with you about the benefits of decentralisation, I think framing this as a "basic fact" about scale ignores the factors specific to FB's organisational structure, constituency of its investors, business model, and the nature of the (lack of) legal regulation in its country of origin, and many of the countries where it is most popular.

     CC @flancian @jotaemei