5 ms·

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,

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.

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.