Notices by three word chant (3wordchant@social.coop)

@jeffowski then say "alt text coming soon" in the post 🤷♀️ How are people meant to know you didn't just forget? (and wow solidarity for whatever awful day you're having that's causing thus torrent of aggression and abuse) @justpeachy

@jeffowski what I'm saying is more like "because the content isn't using the bare minimum accessibility tools the platform provides, I will NOT share anything"

Maybe examine the ableism in expecting people with disabilities to do more work – clicking 3 buttons (edit post / edit image / OCR), is *less* work for you than anyone else, and editing the original post makes things significantly easier for people with impaired vision — and in using "insane" as an insult.

Have a nice day…

@justpeachy

@jeffowski would you mind adding alt-text? 🙏 I would love to boost this

@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

@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

@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

@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

@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

@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

@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

@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

@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

@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

@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

@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?

@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

@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