4 ms·

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gab_(social_network) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gab_(social_network) - "Gab is an English-language social media website,

by loceng 7y ago

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gab_(social_network) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gab_(social_network) - "Gab is an English-language social media website, launched publicly in 2017, known for its mainly far-right user base.[9] The site has been described as "extremist friendly"[10] or a "safe haven"[11] for neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and the alt-right.[10] ... Antisemitism is a prominent part of the site's content[24] and the platform itself has engaged in antisemitic commentary.[13][25]" - and so on. I'm curious how the existing Mastodon users feel about this.

WC3w6pXxgGd 7y ago
Twitter has WAY more extreme people and expressed viewpoints on its platform than Gab.
black6 7y ago
There are existing instances which have been described as “nazi alt-right quadroons” and instance moderators can block other instances, so it’ll probably be business as usual.
smacktoward 7y ago
A nice thing about Mastodon/ActivityPub is that administrators of "instances" (which means basically each running copy of the server software; you create a user account with a specific Mastodon instance, rather than with Mastodon itself) can disable federation with individual other instances, if they want to. So if a particular instance becomes a haven for trolls or other miscreants, you can block that entire instance and your users will no longer have to deal anything posted from it. So I suspect that, if Gab really does become an ActivityPub instance, many other instances will just de-federate from them and that will be that.
- loceng 7y ago
  Okay cool. I wonder does that mean Gab is able to use and benefit from any apps/tools created for Mastodon instances - or would it be possible for the owners of those apps/tools themselves to block/prevent certain instances from benefiting? I'd hope that's the case so everyone has the ability to 'vote' for who they are supporting.
  - smacktoward 7y ago
    > I wonder does that mean Gab is able to use and benefit from any apps/tools created for Mastodon instances Theoretically, yes. If Gab becomes an ActivityPub instance, and you have an account on Gab, you should be able to use any ActivityPub client software to connect to it. Since all ActivityPub instances are supposed to implement the same API, clients are essentially agnostic as to which particular instance they're connecting to. It's kind of like how you can use any mail reader to connect to any IMAP/POP email account. What makes the de-federating thing I mentioned above significant here is that, just because you could use an ActivityPub client to connect to Gab, that doesn't necessarily mean you'd get access to anything in the fediverse outside of Gab. You can only connect to resources outside your instance if your instance is federated with that other one. If other instances refuse to federate with Gab, Gab users would be able to talk with each other and no one else.
  - hedora 7y ago
    Free Software can’t discriminate based on use case, but this was written back before godwin’s law was repealed, so, maybe no one will care that much if freedom zero gets tossed out? sigh https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html A program is free software if the program's users have the four essential freedoms: [1] The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0). ...
    - johnny22 7y ago
      sure it can. They have the right and ability to only allow connections to specific instances. You'd still have the right to recompile it without such a list though.
    - loceng 7y ago
      We prevent bad actors from developing (if possible) or having nuclear weapons. If they come to develop it on their own, okay then, however imagine we just gave that technology to everyone? Nuclear weapons have widespread and massive devastation, the potential energy that builds up with hate is perhaps more terrifying though - as instead of immediately killing millions, you'll have situations like Nazi Germany, and so on - allowing bad actors to gain more and more power and more resources to influence the world. I don't know and am not saying whether it should be done or not, if a developer who builds something that works with Mastodon's structure should be allowed to build a mechanism in that prevents who they consider bad actors (or bad parents) to having use of their tool; of course the bad actors could copy and develop the tools themselves, however those slight or temporary advantages do play a role in who is a victor - imagine if it was the Nazis had nuclear weapons first. Generally not aiding people towards their goals who you see are behaving in a way that leads to hate and violence is a good thing, no? Helping them survive, understand, and quell their unrest, yes - but not helping hate and violence boil and explode. The university Mark Zuckerberg was attending was planning to develop an online version of what they called a physical version of The Facebook. Mark couldn't understand why it was taking them so long and said he could get it launched quickly; the reason it wasn't being launched quickly was the university/committee was trying to understand the security, social, and other implications. Mark didn't care at all about the consequences - including but not limited to him fucking over the twin brothers who hired him to develop ConnectU, leading them on purposefully so he could launch Facebook first. Perhaps if everyone did care about the consequences for what they invest their time and/or money into, then standing for good - rallying good people and helping prop them up as best as we all can all in service to others - would gain a leg up against bad actors, malevolence?
macinjosh 7y ago
This is a good example of why Wikipedia is not a reliable source for many things. I have used Gab and while it is true there are clearly anti-Semitic users on Gab but there are just as many users who call out that behavior and make fun of the simple mindedness of anti-semitism. Just because a platform is for free speech absolutism doesn't mean the platform itself is bad.
- anarchy8 7y ago
  > free speech absolutism I just did a cursory glance at Gab and I already found 4 antisemitic posts and that was just on the first page.
treerock 7y ago
Given it's a federated service, I doubt many mastadon users will know or care that much. Those that run servers might choose to blacklist them, making them all but invisible.
layoutIfNeeded 7y ago
Mastodon is like email. How do email users feel about other people sending nazi stuff via email?
- rchaud 7y ago
  Depends on where we are in the historical timeline. I remember abandoning Hotmail in 2004 because of just how much spam got through. Gmail's spam filter was leagues ahead, but I think these days they're all pretty good. These things take time to change. There will be an adjustment period during which Gab's hate content will spill over into other Mastodon environments. Like a spam senders list, Mastodon environments will need to continuously update the list of blocked Gab/hate group instances.
  - antepodius 7y ago
    I wonder which side is going to splinter first.

by loceng 7y ago

WC3w6pXxgGd 7y ago

Twitter has WAY more extreme people and expressed viewpoints on its platform than Gab.

black6 7y ago

There are existing instances which have been described as “nazi alt-right quadroons” and instance moderators can block other instances, so it’ll probably be business as usual.

smacktoward 7y ago

A nice thing about Mastodon/ActivityPub is that administrators of "instances" (which means basically each running copy of the server software; you create a user account with a specific Mastodon instance, rather than with Mastodon itself) can disable federation with individual other instances, if they want to. So if a particular instance becomes a haven for trolls or other miscreants, you can block that entire instance and your users will no longer have to deal anything posted from it. So I suspect that, if Gab really does become an ActivityPub instance, many other instances will just de-federate from them and that will be that.

loceng 7y ago
Okay cool. I wonder does that mean Gab is able to use and benefit from any apps/tools created for Mastodon instances - or would it be possible for the owners of those apps/tools themselves to block/prevent certain instances from benefiting? I'd hope that's the case so everyone has the ability to 'vote' for who they are supporting.
- smacktoward 7y ago
  > I wonder does that mean Gab is able to use and benefit from any apps/tools created for Mastodon instances Theoretically, yes. If Gab becomes an ActivityPub instance, and you have an account on Gab, you should be able to use any ActivityPub client software to connect to it. Since all ActivityPub instances are supposed to implement the same API, clients are essentially agnostic as to which particular instance they're connecting to. It's kind of like how you can use any mail reader to connect to any IMAP/POP email account. What makes the de-federating thing I mentioned above significant here is that, just because you could use an ActivityPub client to connect to Gab, that doesn't necessarily mean you'd get access to anything in the fediverse outside of Gab. You can only connect to resources outside your instance if your instance is federated with that other one. If other instances refuse to federate with Gab, Gab users would be able to talk with each other and no one else.
- hedora 7y ago
  Free Software can’t discriminate based on use case, but this was written back before godwin’s law was repealed, so, maybe no one will care that much if freedom zero gets tossed out? sigh https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html A program is free software if the program's users have the four essential freedoms: [1] The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0). ...
  - johnny22 7y ago
    sure it can. They have the right and ability to only allow connections to specific instances. You'd still have the right to recompile it without such a list though.
  - loceng 7y ago
    We prevent bad actors from developing (if possible) or having nuclear weapons. If they come to develop it on their own, okay then, however imagine we just gave that technology to everyone? Nuclear weapons have widespread and massive devastation, the potential energy that builds up with hate is perhaps more terrifying though - as instead of immediately killing millions, you'll have situations like Nazi Germany, and so on - allowing bad actors to gain more and more power and more resources to influence the world. I don't know and am not saying whether it should be done or not, if a developer who builds something that works with Mastodon's structure should be allowed to build a mechanism in that prevents who they consider bad actors (or bad parents) to having use of their tool; of course the bad actors could copy and develop the tools themselves, however those slight or temporary advantages do play a role in who is a victor - imagine if it was the Nazis had nuclear weapons first. Generally not aiding people towards their goals who you see are behaving in a way that leads to hate and violence is a good thing, no? Helping them survive, understand, and quell their unrest, yes - but not helping hate and violence boil and explode. The university Mark Zuckerberg was attending was planning to develop an online version of what they called a physical version of The Facebook. Mark couldn't understand why it was taking them so long and said he could get it launched quickly; the reason it wasn't being launched quickly was the university/committee was trying to understand the security, social, and other implications. Mark didn't care at all about the consequences - including but not limited to him fucking over the twin brothers who hired him to develop ConnectU, leading them on purposefully so he could launch Facebook first. Perhaps if everyone did care about the consequences for what they invest their time and/or money into, then standing for good - rallying good people and helping prop them up as best as we all can all in service to others - would gain a leg up against bad actors, malevolence?

macinjosh 7y ago

This is a good example of why Wikipedia is not a reliable source for many things. I have used Gab and while it is true there are clearly anti-Semitic users on Gab but there are just as many users who call out that behavior and make fun of the simple mindedness of anti-semitism. Just because a platform is for free speech absolutism doesn't mean the platform itself is bad.

anarchy8 7y ago
> free speech absolutism I just did a cursory glance at Gab and I already found 4 antisemitic posts and that was just on the first page.

treerock 7y ago

Given it's a federated service, I doubt many mastadon users will know or care that much. Those that run servers might choose to blacklist them, making them all but invisible.

layoutIfNeeded 7y ago

Mastodon is like email. How do email users feel about other people sending nazi stuff via email?

rchaud 7y ago
Depends on where we are in the historical timeline. I remember abandoning Hotmail in 2004 because of just how much spam got through. Gmail's spam filter was leagues ahead, but I think these days they're all pretty good. These things take time to change. There will be an adjustment period during which Gab's hate content will spill over into other Mastodon environments. Like a spam senders list, Mastodon environments will need to continuously update the list of blocked Gab/hate group instances.
- antepodius 7y ago
  I wonder which side is going to splinter first.