4 ms·

"We" are not using it for the same reason nazis are not using it: because hardly anyone's there. It needs critical mass first. Once that happens, nazis/trolls/e

"We" are not using it for the same reason nazis are not using it: because hardly anyone's there. It needs critical mass first. Once that happens, nazis/trolls/etc will find their way there too, I'm afraid.

guelo 10y ago
Nazis are banned by policy.
- FreeFull 10y ago
  I doubt that Twitter's policy is very nazi-friendly either.
  - rmc 10y ago
    Depends. You can take free speech very seriously and hence not want to ban Nazis. For example the ACLU went to the US Supreme Court to support the National Socialist Party of America to march in USA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Party_of_America_v._Village_of_Skokie https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Party_of_Am...
    - jubalfh 10y ago
      Not every country is the United States of America, and freedom of speech is not exclusively defined by amendments to an American constitution. You can ban the nazi symbols & language and still have freedom of speech.
      - dogma1138 10y ago
        I'm pretty sure that "banning Nazi's" is a catch all phrase meaning banning anyone whose opinions we do not agree with above a certain level / token candidates. Twitter has a pretty well rounded TOS and they tend to go out of their way to block/ban people even when they haven't violated the TOS/CoC when there is sufficient pressure. That said I don't understand why people want to turn their social networks to echo chambers, if you only having discussions that do not make you feel uncomfortable or challenge your views you often do not hold discussions worth having.
        johnny22 10y ago
        not every discussion about topic X needs interjections about topic Y.
        rmc 10y ago
        > I'm pretty sure that "banning Nazi's" is a catch all phrase meaning banning anyone whose opinions we do not agree with above a certain level / token candidates. The mastodon.social terms ban this stuff: > - Content illegal in Germany and/or France, such as holocaust denial or Nazi symbolism > - Conduct promoting the ideology of National Socialism So, er, literally "Nazis", not just "things I don't like"
- tomjen3 10y ago
  That worked well for the Rhineland.
  - platz 10y ago
    Only on one of the servers. You can set up a federated nazi node using the mastodon software.
- zephyrfalcon 10y ago
  Yes, but according to the article, Mastodon only has 35K users at the moment. The question is how they're going to enforce this policy when/if it reaches Twitter size (hundreds of millions of users). When armies of trolls show up making hit-and-run accounts, that's going to be hard to combat. Then again, Twitter has been notoriously uninterested in fighting this kind of problem. In fact, they don't seem to care much at all what their users think (editing tweets, anyone?), probably because users are not a direct source of income for them (but advertisers are). This is different in the case of Mastodon. It would be interesting to see what kind of solution they might come up with.
  - pimterry 10y ago
    'Intentionally splinter' is a likely and interesting answer. Mastodon.social (the main site, with about 40K users) has now actually closed for registrations, so users are going to Mastodon.xyz, Mastodon.club, or one of the many other instances: https://github.com/tootsuite/mastodon/blob/master/docs/Using-Mastodon/List-of-Mastodon-instances.md https://github.com/tootsuite/mastodon/blob/master/docs/Using.... Users on all of these can still communicate between one another freely though. Users can join any one they like and keep talking to all the others, or start their own, and can import and export their data to move between them fairly easily too (although you can't forcibly redirect the people who were originally following you). Each of those instances are (potentially) run by different people, who can each have their own rules and limit entrance however they like, to ensure they can maintain their own rules. If an instance wants to allow nazis, or doesn't want to enforce any rules at all, then fine, but most others will block them. The nazis can have their own little corner of the internet, but nobody else will talk to them. In practice, if Mastodon reached hundreds of millions of users, I'd expect that to be spread over a great many instances, run by many independent groups which makes the enforcement problem _mostly_ simpler. It's not perfect, but it's an interesting approach.

guelo 10y ago

Nazis are banned by policy.

FreeFull 10y ago
I doubt that Twitter's policy is very nazi-friendly either.
- rmc 10y ago
  Depends. You can take free speech very seriously and hence not want to ban Nazis. For example the ACLU went to the US Supreme Court to support the National Socialist Party of America to march in USA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Party_of_America_v._Village_of_Skokie https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Party_of_Am...
  - jubalfh 10y ago
    Not every country is the United States of America, and freedom of speech is not exclusively defined by amendments to an American constitution. You can ban the nazi symbols & language and still have freedom of speech.
    - dogma1138 10y ago
      I'm pretty sure that "banning Nazi's" is a catch all phrase meaning banning anyone whose opinions we do not agree with above a certain level / token candidates. Twitter has a pretty well rounded TOS and they tend to go out of their way to block/ban people even when they haven't violated the TOS/CoC when there is sufficient pressure. That said I don't understand why people want to turn their social networks to echo chambers, if you only having discussions that do not make you feel uncomfortable or challenge your views you often do not hold discussions worth having.
      - johnny22 10y ago
        not every discussion about topic X needs interjections about topic Y.
      - rmc 10y ago
        > I'm pretty sure that "banning Nazi's" is a catch all phrase meaning banning anyone whose opinions we do not agree with above a certain level / token candidates. The mastodon.social terms ban this stuff: > - Content illegal in Germany and/or France, such as holocaust denial or Nazi symbolism > - Conduct promoting the ideology of National Socialism So, er, literally "Nazis", not just "things I don't like"
tomjen3 10y ago
That worked well for the Rhineland.
- platz 10y ago
  Only on one of the servers. You can set up a federated nazi node using the mastodon software.
zephyrfalcon 10y ago
Yes, but according to the article, Mastodon only has 35K users at the moment. The question is how they're going to enforce this policy when/if it reaches Twitter size (hundreds of millions of users). When armies of trolls show up making hit-and-run accounts, that's going to be hard to combat. Then again, Twitter has been notoriously uninterested in fighting this kind of problem. In fact, they don't seem to care much at all what their users think (editing tweets, anyone?), probably because users are not a direct source of income for them (but advertisers are). This is different in the case of Mastodon. It would be interesting to see what kind of solution they might come up with.
- pimterry 10y ago
  'Intentionally splinter' is a likely and interesting answer. Mastodon.social (the main site, with about 40K users) has now actually closed for registrations, so users are going to Mastodon.xyz, Mastodon.club, or one of the many other instances: https://github.com/tootsuite/mastodon/blob/master/docs/Using-Mastodon/List-of-Mastodon-instances.md https://github.com/tootsuite/mastodon/blob/master/docs/Using.... Users on all of these can still communicate between one another freely though. Users can join any one they like and keep talking to all the others, or start their own, and can import and export their data to move between them fairly easily too (although you can't forcibly redirect the people who were originally following you). Each of those instances are (potentially) run by different people, who can each have their own rules and limit entrance however they like, to ensure they can maintain their own rules. If an instance wants to allow nazis, or doesn't want to enforce any rules at all, then fine, but most others will block them. The nazis can have their own little corner of the internet, but nobody else will talk to them. In practice, if Mastodon reached hundreds of millions of users, I'd expect that to be spread over a great many instances, run by many independent groups which makes the enforcement problem _mostly_ simpler. It's not perfect, but it's an interesting approach.