5 ms·

Twitter is ruled by the will of the company and by extensions its shareholders and by extension of that the interests of capital. The Fediverse broadly isn't r

by zanny 6y ago

Twitter is ruled by the will of the company and by extensions its shareholders and by extension of that the interests of capital. The Fediverse broadly isn't really ruled, its about who you participate with. It is to the benefit of Mastodon et al that even though the mainstream deplatforms intolerance it doesn't actively prevent them from using the software, just from using their servers of it. Yea, if you want to be in the mainstream Fediverse you need to play by the consensus rules of that space. But its just that, a consensus of server operators, rather than the will of a corporate entity.

kortilla 6y ago
I’m not sure mob rule is better than a corporate entity in this regard.
- zaarn 6y ago
  If you disagree, you can run a server that doesn't follow consensus. The most common outcome is that you'll be blacklisted or atleast silenced by other instances (silenced meaning only people that deliberately follow see your posts). People who agree with you and don't blacklist your instance can talk and interact with you. That is basically as close to proper free speech as you get. I get my corner of the internet, where I will blacklist nazis and racism, you get yours were you don't.
  - CaptArmchair 6y ago
    I'll leave this relevant xkcd comic here: https://xkcd.com/1357/ https://xkcd.com/1357/
    - Phrodo_00 6y ago
      The difference is it's federated, so the content is available to everyone that wants it it their server.
      - zaarn 6y ago
        I mean, that's basically why the comment agrees with what I wrote, I think. You're free to federate with whoever you want and other people are free to federate with you or not. Nobody is forced to listen to what you have to say, it's entirely voluntary. Ie, actual free speech.
        CaptArmchair 6y ago
        Exactly. I've clarified this here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24036190 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24036190 The operative word is "force" which tends to translate to threatening harm or violence. At which point, one tends to contest the prerogative of dominant authority which is usually a sovereign nation state. Depending on where you live, this prerogative is legitimized through a democratically elected mandate and codified in a constitution. This principle sanctions a state to prosecute private citizens exerting violence against each other over differing opinions, beliefs and so on in front of a court of law (separation of powers!) The 1st amendment is the cornerstone, in that it protects private citizens from that same legitimate authority trying to curtail freedom of speech by passing laws that do so, or by sanctioning violence against people who hold particular opinions. ... which is why I posted the cartoon. The 1st amendment doesn't shield anyone from criticism, feedback or being ignored by others. If Mastodon instances block or blacklist each other, the principle of free speech wasn't violated. What really happened is different groups of private individuals deciding to stop listening or acknowledging other groups of individuals. Is this a morally right or even healthy thing to do? That's highly debatable, depends heavily on the context and who you're talking to and I don't think there's a one-size-fits-all answer to this question. Your mileage may vary, as is always when confronted with murky human behaviour.
    - slightwinder 6y ago
      How sad that people really believe that.
      - zaarn 6y ago
        All this says is that you can't force people to listen to your speech. If you disagree, the only other option is to force people to listen, which is just fascism.
        slightwinder 6y ago
        It says a significant bit more. Not even seeing this is a symptom I guess.
        ekianjo 6y ago
        > All this says is that you can't force people to listen to your speech. Erm, no, this comic explicitly says it's OK to be kicked off a platform for the things you say. Which is essentially mob-rule, or an arbitrary rule a community can invent on the spot to justify kicking you out. That's what you call authoritarian when someone/groups makes a decision to censor you on the basis of you having a different opinion.
        zaarn 6y ago
        In mastodon the individual platforms are run by individual administrators, who decide what is permissible and what not. You can't force them to have to list or federate with your instance just like you can't force someone to listen to what you have to say. It's not authoritarian, it's free speech as a principle. You can say what you want and everyone who is willing can listen. Everyone else doesn't have to listen. That is free speech. You aren't kicked of the platform, you can still be part of the fediverse, in fact, there is plenty of instance that are willing to uphold the "no moderation free speech" fake principle to host trolls and alt-right who federate with everything that is legal.
        ekianjo 6y ago
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
  - kortilla 6y ago
    Funny how you assume it’s racism that the mob chooses to censor.
    - zaarn 6y ago
      I don't assume, I just explain what I do and what I see most commonly done. I don't allow racism and that's not censorship, it's my personal, private choice and my users agree with it (if they don't they are free to take their data off my server and go elsewhere with no interference on my part)
      - kortilla 6y ago
        That is quite literally censorship: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship You seem to be confused and think that censorship has to come from government or some other orgs? You’re suppressing political topics (e.g. all of migration policy is racist by definition), which lands squarely in the censorship camp. It’s not any less censorship if your users agree with it.
        zaarn 6y ago
        Well, the thing is that I'm not forcing you to use my instance. If I tried to prevent you from saying specific things on all instances then I would call it censorship. But as long as you can go elsewhere for your speech, it's not censorship, it's free speech, just like it's a free market of ideas. You seem to be confused and think that free speech means everyone has to listen to your speech, otherwise it is censorship. Before the internet and connectivity, people were perfectly free to stand on a soapbox and say their speech, just as everyone around them as free to ignore them, ostracize them or throw rocks at them. Censorship requires things to be surpressed or prohibited but I alone on my mastodon instance cannot prohibit or surpress these things on my own. I can ban them on my instance but people can go elsewhere, so the speech is neither prohibited nor surpressed, just not welcome in this place. Censorship largely, IMO, can only be done by the government or large corporations like Facebook. It is censorship when speech is forbidden that has no other place to go. On the other hand, racism and hatespeech should be censored, they're not welcome and this "sunlight is the best desinfectant" bs people like to repeat like it's a bible quote doesn't help.
- slightwinder 6y ago
  It's not mob-rule, it's mob-filter, which you can ignore if you know how.

by zanny 6y ago

kortilla 6y ago

I’m not sure mob rule is better than a corporate entity in this regard.

zaarn 6y ago
If you disagree, you can run a server that doesn't follow consensus. The most common outcome is that you'll be blacklisted or atleast silenced by other instances (silenced meaning only people that deliberately follow see your posts). People who agree with you and don't blacklist your instance can talk and interact with you. That is basically as close to proper free speech as you get. I get my corner of the internet, where I will blacklist nazis and racism, you get yours were you don't.
- CaptArmchair 6y ago
  I'll leave this relevant xkcd comic here: https://xkcd.com/1357/ https://xkcd.com/1357/
  - Phrodo_00 6y ago
    The difference is it's federated, so the content is available to everyone that wants it it their server.
    - zaarn 6y ago
      I mean, that's basically why the comment agrees with what I wrote, I think. You're free to federate with whoever you want and other people are free to federate with you or not. Nobody is forced to listen to what you have to say, it's entirely voluntary. Ie, actual free speech.
      - CaptArmchair 6y ago
        Exactly. I've clarified this here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24036190 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24036190 The operative word is "force" which tends to translate to threatening harm or violence. At which point, one tends to contest the prerogative of dominant authority which is usually a sovereign nation state. Depending on where you live, this prerogative is legitimized through a democratically elected mandate and codified in a constitution. This principle sanctions a state to prosecute private citizens exerting violence against each other over differing opinions, beliefs and so on in front of a court of law (separation of powers!) The 1st amendment is the cornerstone, in that it protects private citizens from that same legitimate authority trying to curtail freedom of speech by passing laws that do so, or by sanctioning violence against people who hold particular opinions. ... which is why I posted the cartoon. The 1st amendment doesn't shield anyone from criticism, feedback or being ignored by others. If Mastodon instances block or blacklist each other, the principle of free speech wasn't violated. What really happened is different groups of private individuals deciding to stop listening or acknowledging other groups of individuals. Is this a morally right or even healthy thing to do? That's highly debatable, depends heavily on the context and who you're talking to and I don't think there's a one-size-fits-all answer to this question. Your mileage may vary, as is always when confronted with murky human behaviour.
  - slightwinder 6y ago
    How sad that people really believe that.
    - zaarn 6y ago
      All this says is that you can't force people to listen to your speech. If you disagree, the only other option is to force people to listen, which is just fascism.
      - slightwinder 6y ago
        It says a significant bit more. Not even seeing this is a symptom I guess.
      - ekianjo 6y ago
        > All this says is that you can't force people to listen to your speech. Erm, no, this comic explicitly says it's OK to be kicked off a platform for the things you say. Which is essentially mob-rule, or an arbitrary rule a community can invent on the spot to justify kicking you out. That's what you call authoritarian when someone/groups makes a decision to censor you on the basis of you having a different opinion.
        zaarn 6y ago
        In mastodon the individual platforms are run by individual administrators, who decide what is permissible and what not. You can't force them to have to list or federate with your instance just like you can't force someone to listen to what you have to say. It's not authoritarian, it's free speech as a principle. You can say what you want and everyone who is willing can listen. Everyone else doesn't have to listen. That is free speech. You aren't kicked of the platform, you can still be part of the fediverse, in fact, there is plenty of instance that are willing to uphold the "no moderation free speech" fake principle to host trolls and alt-right who federate with everything that is legal.
        ekianjo 6y ago
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- kortilla 6y ago
  Funny how you assume it’s racism that the mob chooses to censor.
  - zaarn 6y ago
    I don't assume, I just explain what I do and what I see most commonly done. I don't allow racism and that's not censorship, it's my personal, private choice and my users agree with it (if they don't they are free to take their data off my server and go elsewhere with no interference on my part)
    - kortilla 6y ago
      That is quite literally censorship: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship You seem to be confused and think that censorship has to come from government or some other orgs? You’re suppressing political topics (e.g. all of migration policy is racist by definition), which lands squarely in the censorship camp. It’s not any less censorship if your users agree with it.
      - zaarn 6y ago
        Well, the thing is that I'm not forcing you to use my instance. If I tried to prevent you from saying specific things on all instances then I would call it censorship. But as long as you can go elsewhere for your speech, it's not censorship, it's free speech, just like it's a free market of ideas. You seem to be confused and think that free speech means everyone has to listen to your speech, otherwise it is censorship. Before the internet and connectivity, people were perfectly free to stand on a soapbox and say their speech, just as everyone around them as free to ignore them, ostracize them or throw rocks at them. Censorship requires things to be surpressed or prohibited but I alone on my mastodon instance cannot prohibit or surpress these things on my own. I can ban them on my instance but people can go elsewhere, so the speech is neither prohibited nor surpressed, just not welcome in this place. Censorship largely, IMO, can only be done by the government or large corporations like Facebook. It is censorship when speech is forbidden that has no other place to go. On the other hand, racism and hatespeech should be censored, they're not welcome and this "sunlight is the best desinfectant" bs people like to repeat like it's a bible quote doesn't help.
slightwinder 6y ago
It's not mob-rule, it's mob-filter, which you can ignore if you know how.