4 ms·

the people fleeing twitter over Musk's dedication to the freedom of speech will find themselves at home at mastadon, where problematic instances are defederated

the people fleeing twitter over Musk's dedication to the freedom of speech will find themselves at home at mastadon, where problematic instances are defederated from - sometimes for as little as refusing to ban a particular problematic individual, and where developers are bullied into blacklisting those in their apps. even late pre-Musk twitter was far more tolerant than mastadon. for example, any instance hosting the harry potter lady would get defederated from by 90% of the network, I guarantee you that.

mike_d 4y ago
> any instance hosting the harry potter lady would get defederated from by 90% of the network If you are getting defederated by 90% of the network, isn't that maybe a strong indication that 90% don't want to hear what you have to say? Freedom of speech is a protection against the government censoring you. It doesn't mean you get to spread hate and toxicity freely without consequence.
- throwaway0x7E6 4y ago
  yea, that's what I'm saying - mastodon is the perfect fit for those people, so this is not an Eternal September kind of event.
- paul_funyun 4y ago
  No, it indicates only that the administrators of 90% of the network don't want others to hear what you have to say. If the admins don't want to hear you they'd use the block function.
  - blowski 4y ago
    In which case, somebody will set up an alternative server which doesn't block them, and people will move there. People who love the free market should _love_ Mastodon.
    - paul_funyun 4y ago
      That doesn't follow from the fact that admin decisions don't reflect the will of the userbase. I'm not a fan of my state' laws about fishing licenses, but that doesn't mean I'll move to another state. Same for Mastodon users. I expect clients that combine timelines from alt accounts using different servers to become the norm. Users get all the benefits, with more ability to opt out. If I've got Jim@alt.net on banning-instance, and Mike@tim.com on the banned instance, and their timelines are combined client-side, it's the best of both worlds.
      - easrng 4y ago
        If you don't trust and share ideals with your admin you are doing it wrong.
- fleddr 4y ago
  Let's say that you're right, and that 90% of Mastodon instances would want to block the Harry Potter lady. This isn't really true, they're pressured into doing this by ruthless activists, but let's pretend that the blockage is genuine and voluntary. If that is true, it means Mastodon misaligns with probably some 90% of the political spectrum that would absolutely not want to take away her speech, regardless of whether people agree with her. Which means...Mastodon is a far-left echo chamber. Which doesn't have to be bad, everybody deserves to have their place. I'm just saying it's not suitable for mainstream usage.
  - PuppyTailWags 4y ago
    Wait.. why wouldn't the blocks be genuine and voluntary?? Instance admins are volunteers, often times literally the instance is on their hardware. If they didn't like it they can ban activists and defederate from activist instances.
    - fleddr 4y ago
      Because an instance mod/admin can be socially pressured to join a ban party, or else be labeled as "fascist".
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
Double_a_92 4y ago
If it gained traction amongst the "general public" such niche ban reasons would probbaly become less common. And neutral federations would automatically emerge because at some point not every instance will bother to ban other random instances.
- easrng 4y ago
  Refusing to ban queerphobic/antisemitic/racist users is by no means a niche reason for defederation.
  - Double_a_92 4y ago
    My point is that most people don't care that Joanne K. Rowling is supposedly transphobic, and instead just like the Harry Potter books. So those instances would certainly not even think about banning Joanne K. Rowling or other instances that give her an account...
josteink 4y ago
> any instance hosting the harry potter lady would get defederated from by 90% of the network, I guarantee you that. That sounds crazy. If my instance did that, I would immediately consider moving to another, more politically tolerant instance or just run my own to traverse the censorship issue entirely. And the good thing about the fediverse is that a user has those options and isn’t at mercy of other peoples limited tolerance for freedom of speech.
pimterry 4y ago
> even late pre-Musk twitter was far more tolerant than mastadon. for example, any instance hosting the harry potter lady would get defederated from by 90% of the network, I guarantee you that. As a user of the network in general though, this doesn't have to matter to you. You can sign up on an instance that defederates according to whichever rules you like (or on an instance that defederates nobody at all). You can still talk to the rest of the network just fine, in addition to talking to anybody other instances want to defederate. There's no silo, you don't have to pick a side. You can even self-host your own single-user instance (or rent one, from e.g. https://masto.host/ https://masto.host/, although they've closed signups due to demand right now) and control federation directly. With that, the only people you won't be able to talk to are people & instances that decide to block you _personally_.
tomlockwood 4y ago
> Musk's dedication to the freedom of speech In his first letter to staff he said they need to focus on "banning trolls". Oof ow.

mike_d 4y ago

> any instance hosting the harry potter lady would get defederated from by 90% of the network If you are getting defederated by 90% of the network, isn't that maybe a strong indication that 90% don't want to hear what you have to say? Freedom of speech is a protection against the government censoring you. It doesn't mean you get to spread hate and toxicity freely without consequence.

throwaway0x7E6 4y ago
yea, that's what I'm saying - mastodon is the perfect fit for those people, so this is not an Eternal September kind of event.
paul_funyun 4y ago
No, it indicates only that the administrators of 90% of the network don't want others to hear what you have to say. If the admins don't want to hear you they'd use the block function.
- blowski 4y ago
  In which case, somebody will set up an alternative server which doesn't block them, and people will move there. People who love the free market should _love_ Mastodon.
  - paul_funyun 4y ago
    That doesn't follow from the fact that admin decisions don't reflect the will of the userbase. I'm not a fan of my state' laws about fishing licenses, but that doesn't mean I'll move to another state. Same for Mastodon users. I expect clients that combine timelines from alt accounts using different servers to become the norm. Users get all the benefits, with more ability to opt out. If I've got Jim@alt.net on banning-instance, and Mike@tim.com on the banned instance, and their timelines are combined client-side, it's the best of both worlds.
    - easrng 4y ago
      If you don't trust and share ideals with your admin you are doing it wrong.
fleddr 4y ago
Let's say that you're right, and that 90% of Mastodon instances would want to block the Harry Potter lady. This isn't really true, they're pressured into doing this by ruthless activists, but let's pretend that the blockage is genuine and voluntary. If that is true, it means Mastodon misaligns with probably some 90% of the political spectrum that would absolutely not want to take away her speech, regardless of whether people agree with her. Which means...Mastodon is a far-left echo chamber. Which doesn't have to be bad, everybody deserves to have their place. I'm just saying it's not suitable for mainstream usage.
- PuppyTailWags 4y ago
  Wait.. why wouldn't the blocks be genuine and voluntary?? Instance admins are volunteers, often times literally the instance is on their hardware. If they didn't like it they can ban activists and defederate from activist instances.
  - fleddr 4y ago
    Because an instance mod/admin can be socially pressured to join a ban party, or else be labeled as "fascist".
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

Double_a_92 4y ago

If it gained traction amongst the "general public" such niche ban reasons would probbaly become less common. And neutral federations would automatically emerge because at some point not every instance will bother to ban other random instances.

easrng 4y ago
Refusing to ban queerphobic/antisemitic/racist users is by no means a niche reason for defederation.
- Double_a_92 4y ago
  My point is that most people don't care that Joanne K. Rowling is supposedly transphobic, and instead just like the Harry Potter books. So those instances would certainly not even think about banning Joanne K. Rowling or other instances that give her an account...

josteink 4y ago

> any instance hosting the harry potter lady would get defederated from by 90% of the network, I guarantee you that. That sounds crazy. If my instance did that, I would immediately consider moving to another, more politically tolerant instance or just run my own to traverse the censorship issue entirely. And the good thing about the fediverse is that a user has those options and isn’t at mercy of other peoples limited tolerance for freedom of speech.

pimterry 4y ago

> even late pre-Musk twitter was far more tolerant than mastadon. for example, any instance hosting the harry potter lady would get defederated from by 90% of the network, I guarantee you that. As a user of the network in general though, this doesn't have to matter to you. You can sign up on an instance that defederates according to whichever rules you like (or on an instance that defederates nobody at all). You can still talk to the rest of the network just fine, in addition to talking to anybody other instances want to defederate. There's no silo, you don't have to pick a side. You can even self-host your own single-user instance (or rent one, from e.g. https://masto.host/ https://masto.host/, although they've closed signups due to demand right now) and control federation directly. With that, the only people you won't be able to talk to are people & instances that decide to block you _personally_.

tomlockwood 4y ago

> Musk's dedication to the freedom of speech In his first letter to staff he said they need to focus on "banning trolls". Oof ow.