6 ms·

>They are quickly banned from most instances (think of them like interconnected communities, or servers). The few instances that allow them are blocked by all t

>They are quickly banned from most instances (think of them like interconnected communities, or servers). The few instances that allow them are blocked by all the others. Toxic actors are effectively ostracized from the greater community. Is banning and ostracizing for wrong think really the way we want to go? It works as long as you are on the politically correct side.

shapiro92 8y ago
I was gonna talk about the same thing. Yes some topics might be black and white, but what about the ones that have a gray side? There are so many problems that arise, in the same way extremists could gain majority and outcast other people. This also creates an unhealthy environment in which discussions are not open due to being afraid of being banned. Expression of the majority over-rules the right of expression and this is not right.
- yogthos 8y ago
  We already know that centralized social media has a huge problem with bubbles right now, and this problem is a direct result of companies trying to monetize the users and keep them engaged. On the other hand, federation is a self organizing system where the networks grow completely organically. This is much closer to how humans organize and interact offline. Everybody can run an instance, and they can choose how they moderate it and whom they federate with. There's no single company deciding what's right or wrong for everybody. There are going to be all kinds of extreme bubbles, as well as moderate ones, and everything in between.
tomatotomato37 8y ago
One thing of note is that unlike centralized systems that completely kick them out, this systems merely sequesters them, so they can still talk among themselves and have no reason to actively fight against the system and constantly create new accounts. Containment based systems work better for everyone involved.
- username3 8y ago
  Flagging posts as nazi and letting users choose to unhide nazi flagged posts is better. Twitter has a NSFW flag and lets users view NSFW with a setting.
  - nextlevelwizard 8y ago
    What does flagging someone a Nazi mean? Who decides what is Nazism? If I don't like you because you put your left shoe on before your right shoe can I flag you as Nazi and does that filter them propagate throughout the whole system, so now no one can see your filthy left-shoe-first posts?
    - username3 8y ago
      Anyone can flag someone a Nazi. The user decides if they trust the flagger. If the flagger false flags, users can ignore the false flagger’s flags.
rchaud 8y ago
> Is banning and ostracizing for wrong think really the way we want to go? Online is different from IRL. IRL, you have an obligation to engage in dialogue rather than pile-on on someone else's pre-existing drama. You cannot simply regurgitate someone else's quotes, . IRL, you are putting your name behind your words, so you can't ghost when you are asked to provide evidence to support your position, nor can you engage in "lol it's just a joke, stop being so serious" chicanery. Most importantly, there aren't any likes or retweets IRL that incentivize comments with a "mic drop" attitude. You are in conversation with that person only, you aren't performing for the Internet at large.
- nextlevelwizard 8y ago
  >you are putting your name behind your words, so you can't ghost when you are asked to provide evidence to support your position, nor can you engage in "lol it's just a joke, stop being so serious" chicanery. Except many times none of these hold true.
  - rchaud 8y ago
    It may not hold true for scripted, time-bound, many-to-one events like talks, but for person-to-person interaction, people see nuance and context more easily, and it's harder to walk out of a conversation because we'd be losing significant credibility in doing so. That might be fine on Twitter, where no one's going to bother looking through your post history, but again IRL, people aren't randomly looking around for other people to get into arguments with in the first place.
- bklaasen 8y ago
  > "lol it's just a joke, stop being so serious" A tactic used by many a racist and misogynist in real life, unfortunately. They manage to make folks attempting to improve the culture seem boring and humourless. The best advice I ever got is simply to respond to racist or other inappropriate commentary with "We don't do that here." I've used it to good effect to help shape a more pleasant working environment.
chartier 8y ago
Nazis. We’re talking about Nazis. And white supremacists. And “provacateours” or trolls or whatever they’re called this week. There was a time when the world didn’t just ostracize people like this, the entire planet went to war to stop them. So, yeah. Silencing them on a social media site seems like a decent first step.
- rocky_rock 8y ago
  Yeah, right. I'd love to see the criteria for determining whether someone is actually a Nazi, white supremacist and/or troll. What about communists? Communism killed a lot more people than the Nazis. Will communists be banned too? Antifa? Black Lives Matter? Nation of Islam? At least you are honest about favoring censorship on the platform.
- apostacy 8y ago
  Nazis don't exist. They used to, before most of us were born, but they don't exist any more. Of course those who want to censor will call their targets Nazis, and try to scare people like you by saying that the world will end if we don't censor them. As far as I know, Facebook doesn't censor revolutionary Maoists or Khmir Rouge sympathizers, and their ideas are easily as dangerous, if any ideas are dangerous. No, we can work through this as a society. Censoring everything is letting them win.
  - rocky_rock 8y ago
    Good point. The same goes for communists too.
  - btreecat 8y ago
    > Nazis don't exist. They used to, before most of us were born, but they don't exist any more. So what's the term for a bunch of white guys shouting "Jews will not replace us" while holding swastika, iron cross, and Nazi eagle symbols?
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]

shapiro92 8y ago

I was gonna talk about the same thing. Yes some topics might be black and white, but what about the ones that have a gray side? There are so many problems that arise, in the same way extremists could gain majority and outcast other people. This also creates an unhealthy environment in which discussions are not open due to being afraid of being banned. Expression of the majority over-rules the right of expression and this is not right.

yogthos 8y ago
We already know that centralized social media has a huge problem with bubbles right now, and this problem is a direct result of companies trying to monetize the users and keep them engaged. On the other hand, federation is a self organizing system where the networks grow completely organically. This is much closer to how humans organize and interact offline. Everybody can run an instance, and they can choose how they moderate it and whom they federate with. There's no single company deciding what's right or wrong for everybody. There are going to be all kinds of extreme bubbles, as well as moderate ones, and everything in between.

tomatotomato37 8y ago

One thing of note is that unlike centralized systems that completely kick them out, this systems merely sequesters them, so they can still talk among themselves and have no reason to actively fight against the system and constantly create new accounts. Containment based systems work better for everyone involved.

username3 8y ago
Flagging posts as nazi and letting users choose to unhide nazi flagged posts is better. Twitter has a NSFW flag and lets users view NSFW with a setting.
- nextlevelwizard 8y ago
  What does flagging someone a Nazi mean? Who decides what is Nazism? If I don't like you because you put your left shoe on before your right shoe can I flag you as Nazi and does that filter them propagate throughout the whole system, so now no one can see your filthy left-shoe-first posts?
  - username3 8y ago
    Anyone can flag someone a Nazi. The user decides if they trust the flagger. If the flagger false flags, users can ignore the false flagger’s flags.

rchaud 8y ago

> Is banning and ostracizing for wrong think really the way we want to go? Online is different from IRL. IRL, you have an obligation to engage in dialogue rather than pile-on on someone else's pre-existing drama. You cannot simply regurgitate someone else's quotes, . IRL, you are putting your name behind your words, so you can't ghost when you are asked to provide evidence to support your position, nor can you engage in "lol it's just a joke, stop being so serious" chicanery. Most importantly, there aren't any likes or retweets IRL that incentivize comments with a "mic drop" attitude. You are in conversation with that person only, you aren't performing for the Internet at large.

nextlevelwizard 8y ago
>you are putting your name behind your words, so you can't ghost when you are asked to provide evidence to support your position, nor can you engage in "lol it's just a joke, stop being so serious" chicanery. Except many times none of these hold true.
- rchaud 8y ago
  It may not hold true for scripted, time-bound, many-to-one events like talks, but for person-to-person interaction, people see nuance and context more easily, and it's harder to walk out of a conversation because we'd be losing significant credibility in doing so. That might be fine on Twitter, where no one's going to bother looking through your post history, but again IRL, people aren't randomly looking around for other people to get into arguments with in the first place.
bklaasen 8y ago
> "lol it's just a joke, stop being so serious" A tactic used by many a racist and misogynist in real life, unfortunately. They manage to make folks attempting to improve the culture seem boring and humourless. The best advice I ever got is simply to respond to racist or other inappropriate commentary with "We don't do that here." I've used it to good effect to help shape a more pleasant working environment.

chartier 8y ago

Nazis. We’re talking about Nazis. And white supremacists. And “provacateours” or trolls or whatever they’re called this week. There was a time when the world didn’t just ostracize people like this, the entire planet went to war to stop them. So, yeah. Silencing them on a social media site seems like a decent first step.

rocky_rock 8y ago
Yeah, right. I'd love to see the criteria for determining whether someone is actually a Nazi, white supremacist and/or troll. What about communists? Communism killed a lot more people than the Nazis. Will communists be banned too? Antifa? Black Lives Matter? Nation of Islam? At least you are honest about favoring censorship on the platform.
apostacy 8y ago
Nazis don't exist. They used to, before most of us were born, but they don't exist any more. Of course those who want to censor will call their targets Nazis, and try to scare people like you by saying that the world will end if we don't censor them. As far as I know, Facebook doesn't censor revolutionary Maoists or Khmir Rouge sympathizers, and their ideas are easily as dangerous, if any ideas are dangerous. No, we can work through this as a society. Censoring everything is letting them win.
- rocky_rock 8y ago
  Good point. The same goes for communists too.
- btreecat 8y ago
  > Nazis don't exist. They used to, before most of us were born, but they don't exist any more. So what's the term for a bunch of white guys shouting "Jews will not replace us" while holding swastika, iron cross, and Nazi eagle symbols?
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]