3 ms·

the founder said the company has a policy on certain things, so you can't post anti-this, anti-that, and anti-the other thing things, else they can at least blo

the founder said the company has a policy on certain things, so you can't post anti-this, anti-that, and anti-the other thing things, else they can at least block you from the apps. which sounds reasonable-ish -- as long as you don't examine it any further than that. and that made me think, ok, so is this really any different from Twitter or any other social network that also does not support or follow the santa clara principles? i would not expect any organization to want to give up any control of their business by subscribing to any external rules, but given that Mastodon is promising to be better on abuse, etc., i thought maybe they'd voluntarily commit to the santa clara principles. but outside of whether any company commits to the santa clara principles or not, the principles seem like an easy way out for a company that wanted to not only do the right thing, but also have the solution to their biggest problem completely mapped out for them -- you don't have to go thru the same thing that all these other companies (and societies) have been going thru for years, with all the uproar and pain and anguish and drama -- you can just implement the basics of the santa clara principles and be done with it -- concentrate on making your platform awesome, and on making boatloads of money. but it must be something in the principles that are making companies say 'thanks, but no thanks'.

eesmith 4y ago
> the founder said the company has a policy on certain things, so you can't post anti-this, anti-that, and anti-the other thing things, else they can at least block you from the apps. How would they block you from doing what you want in your own independently-run instance? You can fork the software. Or write your own. It doesn't need to be only what "Eugen Rochko & other Mastodon contributors" say it is. As I understand it, the goal of the federated approach is that if you don't like a server's policies, you can move to another server, or host your own. > you can just implement the basics of the santa clara principles and be done with it Meaningfully handling appeals cannot be categorized as "just". Providing clear reasons results in rules-lawyering trolls. This takes continuous effort, which large profitable companies can handle but small groups cannot. (And even then, articles like "Facebook to pay $52m to content moderators over PTSD" at https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-52642633 https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-52642633 show these principles aren't a "solution to their biggest problem". My quick scan of "The Santa Clara Principles: On Transparency and Accountability in Content Moderation" says it's for companies. It starts "Principle: Companies should ensure ...", and with a focus on large companies ("The Operational Principles set out more granular expectations for the largest or most mature companies"), and its history page references "the human rights responsibilities of companies". Mastodon instances can and are run by volunteer organizations and individuals. Anyone can set up their own instance, or pay a hosting provider to run an instance. For them, these principles don't really seem applicable.
- readonthegoapp 4y ago
  i added some clarification to a previous comment on the 'blocking' i mentioned earlier -- yes, it seems the Mastodon apps either cannot, or will not initially, outright block hate servers. i think part of the santa clara principles is to make it easier - more profitable even - for more organizations of all types to run their companies in a way that is consistent with human rights -- which i would guess is the main argument of the principles -- free speech, human rights, etc. as opposed to, ok, i'm gonna spin up a new mastodon server, or some other website, or protocol, or whatever, and i'm going to make up some set of dos and don'ts and... just kind of hope for the best i guess. so, you can say things like the Principles don't or should not apply to small servers/sites/services/etc., but... i don't suspect that's the idea. it's just saying, if you're a bigger org, we have some recommendations on how you should operate - in case you are curious and don't want to have to come up with it all on your own, and want to be in compliance with this particular standard so you don't have to worry about HRW protesting outside your door, and maybe it's even good for your brand, etc. as for the expense of moderation, point taken - maybe we should have an actually-public digital town square. government-run. quasi-governmental. non-profit. worker co-op. a few different ways it could go. we still have plenty of physical public town squares -- why not some digital public town squares? i would guess part of the reason that organizations don't want to adopt the santa clara principles is that it at least implies that organizations or companies have human rights responsibilities -- and that can be a real drag on the bottom line, and probably opens a massive can of worms. to me, i get it -- it's like... if i start a business, and my employees want to form a union, my heart is like yeah, obviously, but my head is like, are you gonna kill the business??
  - eesmith 4y ago
    As I understand it, "Mastodon" is a web server, which is also an ActivityPub node, and with a focus on microblogging. There are other ActivityPub servers, and you don't need Mastodon to do microblogging. As such, "Mastodon apps" seems a bit odd, though that could be my ignorance. Is that some way to extend functionality on a Mastodon server? If so, how is that different than any other plug-in? Also as I understand it, the administrator of a Mastodon node can decide which other node to associate with, and some Mastodon instances aren't part of the "Fediverse." > for more organizations of all types Why do you think that when it specifically refers to "companies", not "organizations of all types"? Consider that antitrust law prohibits large companies - ones with significant market power - from certain actions which are completely permissible in a small company. My feeling from the Santa Clara Principles is that it feels like the relevant companies want to demonstrate to legislators that they are doing enough of the right thing that the government doesn't need to step in with oversight. > maybe we should have an actually-public digital town square. I've never lived in a place with this much-trumpeted mythology of the town square open to all points of view. It feels like a fake glorification of something that never existed. I mean, restraining orders still apply in public squares. Time/place/manner restrictions definitely exist. People may need permits, if only to prevent scheduling conflicts. People definitely risk ostracization for speaking. And I strongly suspect blacks were not welcome in most public squares - and until living memory could face official state oppression for speaking out. So it's not like the historical "town square" was what the myth seems to suggest. > is that it at least implies that organizations or companies have human rights responsibilities Then use the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, linked to from the "The History of the Santa Clara Principles" section of the web site: https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/GuidingPrinciplesBusinessHR_EN.pdf https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/GuidingPrincipl... . Or, as I pointed out at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16838828 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16838828 , compare Eric Schmidt's "How Google Works" with "the HP Way". The latter had the objective: To meet the obligations of good citizenship by making contributions to the community and to the institutions in our society which generate the environment in which we operate Google's way does not include social obligations.
smoldesu 4y ago
> else they can at least block you from the apps. I mean, this is just out-right wrong. Where are you getting the impression that "the founder" can block you from the apps?
- readonthegoapp 4y ago
  https://time.com/6229230/mastodon-eugen-rochko-interview/ https://time.com/6229230/mastodon-eugen-rochko-interview/ seems like you are probably at least technically right/correct -- at least for now -- as far as my understanding of the platform goes, and the stated intentions of the founder. the founder talks a lot about how he/mastodon, thru the apps, can effectively demote hate servers/people, by not recommending them to new users. and that, to me, is not technically full on blocking/censoring -- so you would be correct. maybe it would be a bit like a quarantined subreddit -- not officially/fully blocked/banned -- just mostly/practically. a bit later he also talks about servers banding together to outright block 'hate servers'. > Additionally, we also act as a guide for anyone who wants to join. Because on our website, and our apps, we provide a default list of curated servers that people can make accounts on. And through that, we make sure that we curate the list in such a way that any server that wants to be promoted by us has to agree to a certain basic set of rules, one of which is that no hate speech is allowed, no sexism, no racism, no homophobia, or transphobia. And through that, we ensure that the association between Mastodon, the brand, and the experience that people want is that of a much safer space than something like Twitter.

eesmith 4y ago

> the founder said the company has a policy on certain things, so you can't post anti-this, anti-that, and anti-the other thing things, else they can at least block you from the apps. How would they block you from doing what you want in your own independently-run instance? You can fork the software. Or write your own. It doesn't need to be only what "Eugen Rochko & other Mastodon contributors" say it is. As I understand it, the goal of the federated approach is that if you don't like a server's policies, you can move to another server, or host your own. > you can just implement the basics of the santa clara principles and be done with it Meaningfully handling appeals cannot be categorized as "just". Providing clear reasons results in rules-lawyering trolls. This takes continuous effort, which large profitable companies can handle but small groups cannot. (And even then, articles like "Facebook to pay $52m to content moderators over PTSD" at https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-52642633 https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-52642633 show these principles aren't a "solution to their biggest problem". My quick scan of "The Santa Clara Principles: On Transparency and Accountability in Content Moderation" says it's for companies. It starts "Principle: Companies should ensure ...", and with a focus on large companies ("The Operational Principles set out more granular expectations for the largest or most mature companies"), and its history page references "the human rights responsibilities of companies". Mastodon instances can and are run by volunteer organizations and individuals. Anyone can set up their own instance, or pay a hosting provider to run an instance. For them, these principles don't really seem applicable.

readonthegoapp 4y ago
i added some clarification to a previous comment on the 'blocking' i mentioned earlier -- yes, it seems the Mastodon apps either cannot, or will not initially, outright block hate servers. i think part of the santa clara principles is to make it easier - more profitable even - for more organizations of all types to run their companies in a way that is consistent with human rights -- which i would guess is the main argument of the principles -- free speech, human rights, etc. as opposed to, ok, i'm gonna spin up a new mastodon server, or some other website, or protocol, or whatever, and i'm going to make up some set of dos and don'ts and... just kind of hope for the best i guess. so, you can say things like the Principles don't or should not apply to small servers/sites/services/etc., but... i don't suspect that's the idea. it's just saying, if you're a bigger org, we have some recommendations on how you should operate - in case you are curious and don't want to have to come up with it all on your own, and want to be in compliance with this particular standard so you don't have to worry about HRW protesting outside your door, and maybe it's even good for your brand, etc. as for the expense of moderation, point taken - maybe we should have an actually-public digital town square. government-run. quasi-governmental. non-profit. worker co-op. a few different ways it could go. we still have plenty of physical public town squares -- why not some digital public town squares? i would guess part of the reason that organizations don't want to adopt the santa clara principles is that it at least implies that organizations or companies have human rights responsibilities -- and that can be a real drag on the bottom line, and probably opens a massive can of worms. to me, i get it -- it's like... if i start a business, and my employees want to form a union, my heart is like yeah, obviously, but my head is like, are you gonna kill the business??
- eesmith 4y ago
  As I understand it, "Mastodon" is a web server, which is also an ActivityPub node, and with a focus on microblogging. There are other ActivityPub servers, and you don't need Mastodon to do microblogging. As such, "Mastodon apps" seems a bit odd, though that could be my ignorance. Is that some way to extend functionality on a Mastodon server? If so, how is that different than any other plug-in? Also as I understand it, the administrator of a Mastodon node can decide which other node to associate with, and some Mastodon instances aren't part of the "Fediverse." > for more organizations of all types Why do you think that when it specifically refers to "companies", not "organizations of all types"? Consider that antitrust law prohibits large companies - ones with significant market power - from certain actions which are completely permissible in a small company. My feeling from the Santa Clara Principles is that it feels like the relevant companies want to demonstrate to legislators that they are doing enough of the right thing that the government doesn't need to step in with oversight. > maybe we should have an actually-public digital town square. I've never lived in a place with this much-trumpeted mythology of the town square open to all points of view. It feels like a fake glorification of something that never existed. I mean, restraining orders still apply in public squares. Time/place/manner restrictions definitely exist. People may need permits, if only to prevent scheduling conflicts. People definitely risk ostracization for speaking. And I strongly suspect blacks were not welcome in most public squares - and until living memory could face official state oppression for speaking out. So it's not like the historical "town square" was what the myth seems to suggest. > is that it at least implies that organizations or companies have human rights responsibilities Then use the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, linked to from the "The History of the Santa Clara Principles" section of the web site: https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/GuidingPrinciplesBusinessHR_EN.pdf https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/GuidingPrincipl... . Or, as I pointed out at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16838828 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16838828 , compare Eric Schmidt's "How Google Works" with "the HP Way". The latter had the objective: To meet the obligations of good citizenship by making contributions to the community and to the institutions in our society which generate the environment in which we operate Google's way does not include social obligations.

smoldesu 4y ago

> else they can at least block you from the apps. I mean, this is just out-right wrong. Where are you getting the impression that "the founder" can block you from the apps?

readonthegoapp 4y ago
https://time.com/6229230/mastodon-eugen-rochko-interview/ https://time.com/6229230/mastodon-eugen-rochko-interview/ seems like you are probably at least technically right/correct -- at least for now -- as far as my understanding of the platform goes, and the stated intentions of the founder. the founder talks a lot about how he/mastodon, thru the apps, can effectively demote hate servers/people, by not recommending them to new users. and that, to me, is not technically full on blocking/censoring -- so you would be correct. maybe it would be a bit like a quarantined subreddit -- not officially/fully blocked/banned -- just mostly/practically. a bit later he also talks about servers banding together to outright block 'hate servers'. > Additionally, we also act as a guide for anyone who wants to join. Because on our website, and our apps, we provide a default list of curated servers that people can make accounts on. And through that, we make sure that we curate the list in such a way that any server that wants to be promoted by us has to agree to a certain basic set of rules, one of which is that no hate speech is allowed, no sexism, no racism, no homophobia, or transphobia. And through that, we ensure that the association between Mastodon, the brand, and the experience that people want is that of a much safer space than something like Twitter.