Notices by In #Flancia we'll meet (flancian@social.coop), page 3

This just happened in my terminal :)

How beautiful can a song be?

[[Very beautiful]] I say

[[bird's lament]] https://music.youtube.com/watch?v=rPcyAZ_5Oik&sq=1&si=obnW1uRZ19dvR1my

@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.

@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.

@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.

@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.

@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.

@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.

@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.

@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

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

@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.

@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

@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.

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

@FinchHaven @Ulrich_the_Elder @tchambers @activitypubblueskybridge thank you, reading!

@Ulrich_the_Elder @tchambers @activitypubblueskybridge are you saying Jack Dorsey is a fascist? Although I've disagreed with him in the past I'm not aware of fascist views in him; do you have links/pointers I could review? Thank you!

I miss having extra feed algorithms here in the Fediverse. Having 'latest' is great; being able to uprank different types of posts would be better.

Happy to see the
2023+ Protocol Roadmap for [[AT Protocol]]:

https://atproto.com/blog/2023-protocol-roadmap

It shows that the people at #Bluesky are thinking productively about architectural improvements and next concrete steps towards federation.

Who is working on similar documents for ActivityPub/the networks that are already part of the #Fediverse?

[[Cooperation]]