13 ms·

The idea that you should be able to shield or blind yourself to content is a flat out stupid one. Not to mention that the way Mastodon works kinda lends it self

The idea that you should be able to shield or blind yourself to content is a flat out stupid one. Not to mention that the way Mastodon works kinda lends it self to the old issue of jerk forum admins. If an instance owner doesn't like what you say for any reason they boot you off. They can also share that information with other instances to block you from going to those instances as well. Sure, you could start your own or join an instance that doesn't do that kinda stuff, but then what's the point of federation? Those are really the only two issues I have with Mastodon.

MattJ100 8y ago
> Sure, you could start your own or join an instance that doesn't do that kinda stuff, but then what's the point of federation? That is exactly the point of federation. Maybe jerk admins are a real problem, maybe they aren't - but they can't boot you off the network, and you'll always have options.
- CM30 8y ago
  It's like being involved in a real life hobby. Sure, one club or organisation can be jerks and kick you out for minor disagreements, but nothing stops you from joining another one or setting up your own.
- hello_marmalade 8y ago
  Well more specifically, what I was trying to say is, if you wanted to be part of, say - the cross-stitching community, and you made a post about how over-under stitching sucks, and so the owner of that server banned you, and then let every other cross-stitching based mastodon know about your terrible stitching beliefs, then while you can still "join" another mastodon instance, you are effectively removed completely from the "cross-stitching community". From what I'm aware of, this has kinda happened with certain instances have essentially been blackballed by the groups of instances which don't like them, or whatever.
  - gnopgnip 8y ago
    That is only if the entire cross stitching community chooses to remove you. The alternative is facebook, and if facebook decides to remove you it doesn't matter what the cross stitching community says, you are out
  - westpfelia 8y ago
    Well in that case couldnt said person create their own community? Assuming there are those in Mastodon that don't agree with the (possibly repeated) actions of the server admin people will start to leave. So no matter what there is still an option. Unlike Facebook/Twitter. I mean technically even InfoWars and Alex Jones could start their own community and by the rules of Mastodon not get kicked off. Please no one tell Alex Jones about Mastodon.
    - pferde 8y ago
      No, someone please do tell Alex Jones about Mastodon. The sooner a problem is encountered, the sooner a solution is found. The alternative is to bump into that problem farther down the line, where solving it will be much costlier. And if Mastodon will crumble because of Alex Jones, it would have crumbled eventually because of someone else like that.
Shish2k 8y ago
> The idea that you should be able to shield or blind yourself to content is a flat out stupid one I'm sure I must be misunderstanding this, because it sounds like you're saying "dick pics and other forms of harrassment are fine, you shouldn't even want to avoid them"? Can you explain what you actually mean, assuming that that isn't it?
- hello_marmalade 8y ago
  Perhaps I should have been more specific, but what I mean is forms of reasonable legal content. Sexual harassment is not content. General sexual content has legitimate reasons for having, say a content warning filter (same with violent content), but I would argue against it's outright banning.
CM30 8y ago
>The idea that you should be able to shield or blind yourself to content is a flat out stupid one. Honest question: Do you feel private organisations and communities shouldn't be able to kick out people they dislike? Because that's how almost all organisations and groups work, real life, internet or otherwise. Doesn't seem very unreasonable to say someone running a hobbyist club or sports team or business should be able to kick out someone they/the people involved can't get along with.
- stcredzero 8y ago
  Do you feel private organisations and communities shouldn't be able to kick out people they dislike? Because that's how almost all organisations and groups work, real life, internet or otherwise. Do you feel like people should be excluded because of their race? Their gender? Their age? Their sexual orientation? Their religion? Isn't that last one a choice according to a lot of people? People should be able to make intimate temporary spaces which will sometimes even be exclusionary. However, permanent places in the public sphere should not be exclusionary. When the majority of a society starts feeling free to push around a minority, this is when oppression happens. This is especially true when it comes to politics. People should have freedom of association, so long as it doesn't interfere with other's freedom to pursue happiness. Doesn't seem very unreasonable to say someone running a hobbyist club or sports team or business should be able to kick out someone they/the people involved can't get along with. Activists have been seen colluding online, planning to deny their political enemies their hobbies and pastimes. It's called, "No escapism," and it's just a stealth form of harassment for political purposes. In the end, progress is best served by welcoming differences, talking, and sincerely interacting. You don't fight hate by acting hatefully. If you can at all help it, you shouldn't try to reduce violence through violence. You don't increase the world's tolerance by refusing tolerance. Here's a good litmus test: Are the tactics you're proposing to use similar to the ones people used to use against gay people, or people of the "wrong" religion, or people of the "wrong" race? If so, then you're probably the villain in the story. Zu jeder Zeit und an jedem Ort bleiben die Taten der Menschen die gleichen.
  - someguydave 8y ago
irrational 8y ago
>The idea that you should be able to shield or blind yourself to content is a flat out stupid one. I must be stupid, because I don't understand why I shouldn't have this right.
- hello_marmalade 8y ago
  Because it's counter-productive. I agree with it insofar as things like spam, which has nothing to do with communication, really - but when it comes to just simply, speech, it's a bad idea. Lets take a really overly simplified example. Lets say you don't like people who like Purple. You're a Pink guy, through and through. In fact you hate people who like Purple. You think they're all jerks. So - you decide, you're going to make it so that you, and anyone else on your sever doesn't have to see Purple posters. Half a year later, you find out that most people now believe in Purple. You don't find this out until people are telling you about how good Purple is in real life. When did all these people turn to Purple? The problem I'm trying to illustrate here, is that as someone who is all about Pink - and opposed to Purple, you've taken yourself out of the opposing conversation. You didn't realize that Purple had the stage, and had been convincing people to go Purple. You didn't realize how much ground Purple gained, with nobody there to speak out about how bad Purple is. While it might feel nice to not have to see things you don't like, in the broader sphere of the world and the place you live, it's damaging. You need to be aware of, and have to confront things you don't like. It's part of your civic duty.
  - wvenable 8y ago
    You're talking about filtering types of speech but in reality you really want to block people. It's not that Bob is really enthusiastic about Purple; it's that he's an insufferable jerk that makes any conversation about Pink impossible. You think you can try and compete with Bob but you can't; he's mentally ill and spends 6 hours a day posting about it. You could try to make a rational argument about the evils of Purple but it dosn't matter. You confront Bob but he's not interested in rational conversation. You just get more frustrated and eventually give up on your community. If there is still anyone still interested in Pink they've long been driven off.
  - 8y ago
droopybuns 8y ago
I feel like one of the truly unique aspects of American millennials is the widespread abandonment of a commitment to free speech. It is so disheartening to hear people who earnestly equate physical violence with offensive speech. Mastodon offers a forum for people who see the wisdom of a commitment to free speech.
- Bendingo 8y ago
  It's not just American millennials; this is also occurring in Australia.
cabalamat 8y ago
> If an instance owner doesn't like what you say for any reason they boot you off. Social media has to have some form of moderation/curation, otherwise it would just be full of spam. > but then what's the point of federation? Censorship is a fraught issue: Some people think lots of things should be blocked; other people think only things against the law should be; and yet others think not even that. There's no way of pleasing everyone. So having a federation of different instances allows each to have whatever moderation policies that suit them, instead of one size fits all.
kevin_thibedeau 8y ago
How do you you propose blacklisting spammers or dealing with material that is illegal in the server's country?
est 8y ago
> instance owner doesn't like what you say for any reason they boot you off That's why I think adding naked domain in ActivityPub is important. It avoids double @user@domain.tld, you can simply use your tld. It's easier to remember, also better to self-host.
drb91 8y ago
Actually this serves as a pretty good pitch for mastadon. Being able to choose the flavor of admin jerk is better than having no choice at all.

MattJ100 8y ago

> Sure, you could start your own or join an instance that doesn't do that kinda stuff, but then what's the point of federation? That is exactly the point of federation. Maybe jerk admins are a real problem, maybe they aren't - but they can't boot you off the network, and you'll always have options.

CM30 8y ago
It's like being involved in a real life hobby. Sure, one club or organisation can be jerks and kick you out for minor disagreements, but nothing stops you from joining another one or setting up your own.
hello_marmalade 8y ago
Well more specifically, what I was trying to say is, if you wanted to be part of, say - the cross-stitching community, and you made a post about how over-under stitching sucks, and so the owner of that server banned you, and then let every other cross-stitching based mastodon know about your terrible stitching beliefs, then while you can still "join" another mastodon instance, you are effectively removed completely from the "cross-stitching community". From what I'm aware of, this has kinda happened with certain instances have essentially been blackballed by the groups of instances which don't like them, or whatever.
- gnopgnip 8y ago
  That is only if the entire cross stitching community chooses to remove you. The alternative is facebook, and if facebook decides to remove you it doesn't matter what the cross stitching community says, you are out
- westpfelia 8y ago
  Well in that case couldnt said person create their own community? Assuming there are those in Mastodon that don't agree with the (possibly repeated) actions of the server admin people will start to leave. So no matter what there is still an option. Unlike Facebook/Twitter. I mean technically even InfoWars and Alex Jones could start their own community and by the rules of Mastodon not get kicked off. Please no one tell Alex Jones about Mastodon.
  - pferde 8y ago
    No, someone please do tell Alex Jones about Mastodon. The sooner a problem is encountered, the sooner a solution is found. The alternative is to bump into that problem farther down the line, where solving it will be much costlier. And if Mastodon will crumble because of Alex Jones, it would have crumbled eventually because of someone else like that.

Shish2k 8y ago

> The idea that you should be able to shield or blind yourself to content is a flat out stupid one I'm sure I must be misunderstanding this, because it sounds like you're saying "dick pics and other forms of harrassment are fine, you shouldn't even want to avoid them"? Can you explain what you actually mean, assuming that that isn't it?

hello_marmalade 8y ago
Perhaps I should have been more specific, but what I mean is forms of reasonable legal content. Sexual harassment is not content. General sexual content has legitimate reasons for having, say a content warning filter (same with violent content), but I would argue against it's outright banning.

CM30 8y ago

>The idea that you should be able to shield or blind yourself to content is a flat out stupid one. Honest question: Do you feel private organisations and communities shouldn't be able to kick out people they dislike? Because that's how almost all organisations and groups work, real life, internet or otherwise. Doesn't seem very unreasonable to say someone running a hobbyist club or sports team or business should be able to kick out someone they/the people involved can't get along with.

stcredzero 8y ago
Do you feel private organisations and communities shouldn't be able to kick out people they dislike? Because that's how almost all organisations and groups work, real life, internet or otherwise. Do you feel like people should be excluded because of their race? Their gender? Their age? Their sexual orientation? Their religion? Isn't that last one a choice according to a lot of people? People should be able to make intimate temporary spaces which will sometimes even be exclusionary. However, permanent places in the public sphere should not be exclusionary. When the majority of a society starts feeling free to push around a minority, this is when oppression happens. This is especially true when it comes to politics. People should have freedom of association, so long as it doesn't interfere with other's freedom to pursue happiness. Doesn't seem very unreasonable to say someone running a hobbyist club or sports team or business should be able to kick out someone they/the people involved can't get along with. Activists have been seen colluding online, planning to deny their political enemies their hobbies and pastimes. It's called, "No escapism," and it's just a stealth form of harassment for political purposes. In the end, progress is best served by welcoming differences, talking, and sincerely interacting. You don't fight hate by acting hatefully. If you can at all help it, you shouldn't try to reduce violence through violence. You don't increase the world's tolerance by refusing tolerance. Here's a good litmus test: Are the tactics you're proposing to use similar to the ones people used to use against gay people, or people of the "wrong" religion, or people of the "wrong" race? If so, then you're probably the villain in the story. Zu jeder Zeit und an jedem Ort bleiben die Taten der Menschen die gleichen.
- someguydave 8y ago

irrational 8y ago

>The idea that you should be able to shield or blind yourself to content is a flat out stupid one. I must be stupid, because I don't understand why I shouldn't have this right.

hello_marmalade 8y ago
Because it's counter-productive. I agree with it insofar as things like spam, which has nothing to do with communication, really - but when it comes to just simply, speech, it's a bad idea. Lets take a really overly simplified example. Lets say you don't like people who like Purple. You're a Pink guy, through and through. In fact you hate people who like Purple. You think they're all jerks. So - you decide, you're going to make it so that you, and anyone else on your sever doesn't have to see Purple posters. Half a year later, you find out that most people now believe in Purple. You don't find this out until people are telling you about how good Purple is in real life. When did all these people turn to Purple? The problem I'm trying to illustrate here, is that as someone who is all about Pink - and opposed to Purple, you've taken yourself out of the opposing conversation. You didn't realize that Purple had the stage, and had been convincing people to go Purple. You didn't realize how much ground Purple gained, with nobody there to speak out about how bad Purple is. While it might feel nice to not have to see things you don't like, in the broader sphere of the world and the place you live, it's damaging. You need to be aware of, and have to confront things you don't like. It's part of your civic duty.
- wvenable 8y ago
  You're talking about filtering types of speech but in reality you really want to block people. It's not that Bob is really enthusiastic about Purple; it's that he's an insufferable jerk that makes any conversation about Pink impossible. You think you can try and compete with Bob but you can't; he's mentally ill and spends 6 hours a day posting about it. You could try to make a rational argument about the evils of Purple but it dosn't matter. You confront Bob but he's not interested in rational conversation. You just get more frustrated and eventually give up on your community. If there is still anyone still interested in Pink they've long been driven off.
- 8y ago

droopybuns 8y ago

I feel like one of the truly unique aspects of American millennials is the widespread abandonment of a commitment to free speech. It is so disheartening to hear people who earnestly equate physical violence with offensive speech. Mastodon offers a forum for people who see the wisdom of a commitment to free speech.

Bendingo 8y ago
It's not just American millennials; this is also occurring in Australia.

cabalamat 8y ago

> If an instance owner doesn't like what you say for any reason they boot you off. Social media has to have some form of moderation/curation, otherwise it would just be full of spam. > but then what's the point of federation? Censorship is a fraught issue: Some people think lots of things should be blocked; other people think only things against the law should be; and yet others think not even that. There's no way of pleasing everyone. So having a federation of different instances allows each to have whatever moderation policies that suit them, instead of one size fits all.

kevin_thibedeau 8y ago

How do you you propose blacklisting spammers or dealing with material that is illegal in the server's country?

est 8y ago

> instance owner doesn't like what you say for any reason they boot you off That's why I think adding naked domain in ActivityPub is important. It avoids double @user@domain.tld, you can simply use your tld. It's easier to remember, also better to self-host.

drb91 8y ago

Actually this serves as a pretty good pitch for mastadon. Being able to choose the flavor of admin jerk is better than having no choice at all.