3 ms·

> If this is a major concern for a mastodon user, they will need to either host their own instance or find an instance with as lax moderation policies as possib

> If this is a major concern for a mastodon user, they will need to either host their own instance or find an instance with as lax moderation policies as possible (and deal with the risk that other interests could interpret that as toxic and ban the whole instance). If by being open and liberal (in the non-political sense) one risks being banned then essentially it's punishment (or the threat of punishment) for defection and the outcome is for everyone to end up being governed by the censors. The suggestion to then "host your own instance" looks a lot like "build your own X" that we had prior to Musk's take over of Twitter from people who didn't really care about the problem (or even see it as a problem). Do you really think people will start hosting their own instances for this?

shadowgovt 4y ago
> the outcome is for everyone to end up being governed by the censors I don't know precisely where people ever got the idea that the kernel of the nature of the Internet was ever anything other than "Admins rule the system." It has always been the nature of the machine that you either operate as a guest of someone else's system or you own a system (and maintain the social etiquette / business agreements necessary to stay peered to other systems, as well as fight the perpetual fight against those who would use your tool to do harm). From e-mail to USENET to IRC to web sites to social media platforms, the social aspect of the network itself is and always has been inextricable from its function. it's a network built by, for, and of people. Mostly volunteers. Mostly volunteers who do it for the love of the geekery of making sand think and lightning dance in a bottle, of building a thing that lets people in Akron talk to people in Anchorage, stepping back, and going "Wow, it's neat that that's possible." I agree with you that it's a tall ask to tell people "If you really want to participate as a peer, you need to technically be a peer," but I have never seen another alternative floated that had any chance of success whatsoever. You cannot force people to talk to each other. You cannot force system operators to allow traffic through private systems that they don't choose to allow through. If you try, they'll leave, and you'll get a network governed by government instead of volunteers (which we can see plenty of examples of already, and they're more restrictive than what we have now). The 'Net also interprets lack of censorship as damage and routes around it. Always has.
Throwawayaerlei 4y ago
"If by being open and liberal (in the non-political sense) one risks being banned then essentially it's punishment (or the threat of punishment) for defection and the outcome is for everyone to end up being governed by the censors." Except there's a whole lot of the Fediverse that doesn't work by this "free speech is fascism that must be banned" principle. You can even find huge lists of such nodes in the huge blacklists maintained by this loose community.... And it's quite refreshing to communicate without worrying about every word you say. It's an outside of the Fediverse problem which therefore cannot escape it, but with solutions that work both outside and inside it.

shadowgovt 4y ago

> the outcome is for everyone to end up being governed by the censors I don't know precisely where people ever got the idea that the kernel of the nature of the Internet was ever anything other than "Admins rule the system." It has always been the nature of the machine that you either operate as a guest of someone else's system or you own a system (and maintain the social etiquette / business agreements necessary to stay peered to other systems, as well as fight the perpetual fight against those who would use your tool to do harm). From e-mail to USENET to IRC to web sites to social media platforms, the social aspect of the network itself is and always has been inextricable from its function. it's a network built by, for, and of people. Mostly volunteers. Mostly volunteers who do it for the love of the geekery of making sand think and lightning dance in a bottle, of building a thing that lets people in Akron talk to people in Anchorage, stepping back, and going "Wow, it's neat that that's possible." I agree with you that it's a tall ask to tell people "If you really want to participate as a peer, you need to technically be a peer," but I have never seen another alternative floated that had any chance of success whatsoever. You cannot force people to talk to each other. You cannot force system operators to allow traffic through private systems that they don't choose to allow through. If you try, they'll leave, and you'll get a network governed by government instead of volunteers (which we can see plenty of examples of already, and they're more restrictive than what we have now). The 'Net also interprets lack of censorship as damage and routes around it. Always has.

Throwawayaerlei 4y ago

"If by being open and liberal (in the non-political sense) one risks being banned then essentially it's punishment (or the threat of punishment) for defection and the outcome is for everyone to end up being governed by the censors." Except there's a whole lot of the Fediverse that doesn't work by this "free speech is fascism that must be banned" principle. You can even find huge lists of such nodes in the huge blacklists maintained by this loose community.... And it's quite refreshing to communicate without worrying about every word you say. It's an outside of the Fediverse problem which therefore cannot escape it, but with solutions that work both outside and inside it.