Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   ≠ (amerika@noagendasocial.com)'s status on Monday, 07-Nov-2022 10:40:52 JST ≠

   in reply to

   • ?Smoking cigs in Room 641a ??|??
   • william.maggos
   • Milo

   @milo @PhenomX6 @wjmaggos

   In my view, it is only when a community is:

   1. Accepting of all viewpoints, but
   2. Demands they be in reasonable form

   That you can have #OpenDiscussion.

   • Embed this notice
     Milo (milo@social.anthro.cc)'s status on Monday, 07-Nov-2022 10:40:52 JST Milo

     in reply to

     • ?Smoking cigs in Room 641a ??|??
     • william.maggos
     unfortunately a lot of instance operators don't see that view point at all, and choose to fall back into the tribalism trap, or are so incredibly 'thin-skinned' or unwilling to have #OpenDiscussion that it's their first course of action.
     
     All the instances that actively reject this instance either:
     
     * Blocked based on Guilt By Implicit or Explicit Association. Be that as little as talking to an instance they don't like for whatever reason, or not supporting the current deplatforming goals of the mob.
     
     or
     
     * Some frivolous complaint they otherwise can't control or otherwise take offense to.
     
     (Something as simple as an emoji)
     
     https://fba.ryona.agency/?domain=social.anthro.cc
     arcanicanis likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     Milo (milo@social.anthro.cc)'s status on Monday, 07-Nov-2022 10:40:53 JST Milo

     in reply to

     • ?Smoking cigs in Room 641a ??|??
     • william.maggos
     Yeah, instance level blocks really should be the final course of action if all else fails.
   • Embed this notice
     ?Smoking cigs in Room 641a ??|?? (phenomx6@fedi.pawlicker.com)'s status on Monday, 07-Nov-2022 10:40:54 JST ?Smoking cigs in Room 641a ??|??

     in reply to

     • william.maggos
     @wjmaggos @amerika The thing is if you ban them, they'll probably flock to another instance to do the same shit to other users there.
     
     Now here's a cool thing; on Pleroma you can defederate single users. This means that you can wipe out a problematic user from an instance that has people you don't hate. You can then solve the problem easily of "one bad user on an instance".
   • Embed this notice
     ≠ (amerika@noagendasocial.com)'s status on Monday, 07-Nov-2022 10:40:55 JST ≠

     in reply to

     • william.maggos

     @wjmaggos

     In my view, the point is "no moderation except for illegal content and spam."

     If instances want to moderate themselves, this is great, but there are consequences to imposing consequences to free speech like dying alone and unused like so many nodes have in the past.

     But yes, I think we should go back to the "Prodigy" court decision. Moderate none and you have no liability; moderate and you are assumed to be speaking.

   • Embed this notice
     william.maggos (wjmaggos@liberal.city)'s status on Monday, 07-Nov-2022 10:40:55 JST william.maggos

     in reply to

     @amerika

     so somebody joins my instance and is a total asshole to everyone and I'm supposed to let them be?

   • Embed this notice
     ≠ (amerika@noagendasocial.com)'s status on Monday, 07-Nov-2022 10:40:56 JST ≠

     in reply to

     • william.maggos

     @wjmaggos

     People disagree. Some instances congregate disagreeable people -- keep in mind I'm blocked by poa.st -- but there are also others.

     It makes more sense just to mute individual accounts since there are not going to be that many of them.

     The same way we handle everything else around here.

     Censorship is not the solution. Individual responsibility is.

     And this is core #LiberalValues, if you think about it.

   • Embed this notice
     william.maggos (wjmaggos@liberal.city)'s status on Monday, 07-Nov-2022 10:40:56 JST william.maggos

     in reply to

     @amerika

     I agree that treating people as individuals is much better and better in line with liberal values. instance blocking should be a last resort, but I think it makes sense as an option. also, wouldn't local moderation be screwy if you can't block instances that might have no moderation? are you arguing for admins only getting rid of illegal stuff?

   • Embed this notice
     william.maggos (wjmaggos@liberal.city)'s status on Monday, 07-Nov-2022 10:40:57 JST william.maggos

     in reply to

     @amerika

     you don't buy that an instance might become a home for people who just want to fuck with people. if a specifically ADOS or Jewish instance popped up, wouldn't you expect a ton of people from one instance (is there a specifically NAZI instance) go after everybody there? wouldn't it make sense for those instances to block that instance instead of expecting each user to block that instance?

   • Embed this notice
     ≠ (amerika@noagendasocial.com)'s status on Monday, 07-Nov-2022 10:40:58 JST ≠

     in reply to

     • william.maggos

     @wjmaggos

     I don't buy it. Mute individual users. The instance does not tell enough about the person quality to defederate.

   • Embed this notice
     william.maggos (wjmaggos@liberal.city)'s status on Monday, 07-Nov-2022 10:40:59 JST william.maggos

     I want the journalists on fedi. I don't like fedi blocking generally. I think there's a difference between expressing hateful ideas or misinformation etc (annoying but not worth blocking an instance over) and tagging users who want to be left alone (in which repeated failure to deal with multiple users of this sort makes instance blocking reasonable).