5 ms·

What's false about the last statement? It is true that in some fediverse spaces, the moderation tools may be overused, but it still turns from the unusable mess

What's false about the last statement? It is true that in some fediverse spaces, the moderation tools may be overused, but it still turns from the unusable mess twitter is - especiallhy when a nazi decides to QRT you, a move twitter almost never considers targeted harassment, even if it results in the same - into a comfortable space. Even if, incidentally, less people have access to it. Not all social media needs to be constant exposure to other people's viewpoint (especially given that "other people's viewpoint" often is a euphemism when marginalized groups that tend to find the fediverse cozy are concerned). If having to pick between flawed corporate moderation and flawed human moderation, the flawed human approach is often better for this group of people.

Dracophoenix 4y ago
I didn't claim that what author said was false (or, for that matter, true). I claimed that his statement was ironic for considering the exclusion a particular minority group as a benefit in an article lamenting the dogmatism that comes with ... excluding minority groups. Whether what he says is true or not, isn't something I can determine as I make a point to avoid dogmatic Mastodon instances. Personally I find neo-Nazism as repugnant as the next reasonable person, but the quote illustrates an intellectual evasion of the fact that an intolerant Fediverse is a largely self-inflicted problem. The Fediverse has now speedrun through 30+ years of Internet history only to replicate the problems of so-called Big Tech. People are now arguing to moderate/censor spaces that existed to get away from the moderation/censorship on the regular Web. But, as the author should have seen one can't have it both ways. > Not all social media needs to be constant exposure to other people's viewpoint I agree with you in this aspect, but I'm of the opinion that instance owner/admin/mod should not be tasked with determining that. The job of a moderator is not to "rescue" people from what they hear, say, or read. > If having to pick between... That's a false dichotomy. All moderation is human moderation. Whether it's done directly by a human being or via neutral net is irrelevant to that fact. Somewhere along the line, a human being made a decision to remove content or set the parameters for the removal. If Reddit is any indication, individual moderators people can be petty and cliquish.
- sascha_sl 4y ago
  > People are now arguing to moderate/censor spaces that existed to get away from the moderation/censorship on the regular Web. On the contrary, I go to the fediverse to escape the lack of moderation on other platforms. Or rather, the way they're moderated. See the last point. > The job of a moderator is not to "rescue" people from what they hear, say, or read. I think the Fediverse needs better discovery mechanisms for instances and how they generally run things, but I am entirely okay with deferring judgement to another party or run my own server (done both, currently on chaos.social). If neither works for you, the official instances are a good middle ground. > That's a false dichotomy. All moderation is human moderation. You misunderstood. When I talk about "corporate moderation", I am referring to moderation choices being driven by corporate interests. Which is usually: as fast as possible, kafkaesque appeal process, whatever is agreeable to most of society is agreeable with us (including rainbow capitalism, but not too queer or angry or kinky please) and, most important for me, entirely devoid of context. I get banned for a week for telling a newspaper to "cease existing", but those telling me to "join the 41%", a veiled way of telling me to kill myself based on a misread statistic about the prevalence of suicide among trans people, get away.

Dracophoenix 4y ago

I didn't claim that what author said was false (or, for that matter, true). I claimed that his statement was ironic for considering the exclusion a particular minority group as a benefit in an article lamenting the dogmatism that comes with ... excluding minority groups. Whether what he says is true or not, isn't something I can determine as I make a point to avoid dogmatic Mastodon instances. Personally I find neo-Nazism as repugnant as the next reasonable person, but the quote illustrates an intellectual evasion of the fact that an intolerant Fediverse is a largely self-inflicted problem. The Fediverse has now speedrun through 30+ years of Internet history only to replicate the problems of so-called Big Tech. People are now arguing to moderate/censor spaces that existed to get away from the moderation/censorship on the regular Web. But, as the author should have seen one can't have it both ways. > Not all social media needs to be constant exposure to other people's viewpoint I agree with you in this aspect, but I'm of the opinion that instance owner/admin/mod should not be tasked with determining that. The job of a moderator is not to "rescue" people from what they hear, say, or read. > If having to pick between... That's a false dichotomy. All moderation is human moderation. Whether it's done directly by a human being or via neutral net is irrelevant to that fact. Somewhere along the line, a human being made a decision to remove content or set the parameters for the removal. If Reddit is any indication, individual moderators people can be petty and cliquish.

sascha_sl 4y ago
> People are now arguing to moderate/censor spaces that existed to get away from the moderation/censorship on the regular Web. On the contrary, I go to the fediverse to escape the lack of moderation on other platforms. Or rather, the way they're moderated. See the last point. > The job of a moderator is not to "rescue" people from what they hear, say, or read. I think the Fediverse needs better discovery mechanisms for instances and how they generally run things, but I am entirely okay with deferring judgement to another party or run my own server (done both, currently on chaos.social). If neither works for you, the official instances are a good middle ground. > That's a false dichotomy. All moderation is human moderation. You misunderstood. When I talk about "corporate moderation", I am referring to moderation choices being driven by corporate interests. Which is usually: as fast as possible, kafkaesque appeal process, whatever is agreeable to most of society is agreeable with us (including rainbow capitalism, but not too queer or angry or kinky please) and, most important for me, entirely devoid of context. I get banned for a week for telling a newspaper to "cease existing", but those telling me to "join the 41%", a veiled way of telling me to kill myself based on a misread statistic about the prevalence of suicide among trans people, get away.