6 ms·

Like Mastodon/Fediverse? They in turn have problems with censorship.

rob74 3y ago
You either have problems with censorship (or moderation, if you want to use a more moderate term), or you have problems with raving lunatics and trolls scaring everyone else off your platform...
- cubefox 3y ago
  You can't justify censorship by across the board smearing censored people as "raving lunatics" or "trolls". The "scaring off" excuse for censorship works for forums like HN, but it doesn't work for social media sites, since on those you choose whom to follow yourself, and even in the replies to posts (of yourself or people you voluntarily follow, and whose followers are likely similar in opinion to yourself!) you can selectively mute or block people. So individuals do not actually need any additional censorship.
  - chimprich 3y ago
    > you can selectively mute or block people That's a fantasy solution. Person A can send you abuse, so you block them. Person B though is free to send you abuse, and so can the next 10,000 people. They might be a minority but even if you block them all, you've still received 10,000 hate messages and you have to spend a lot of time doing your own policing. And then everyone else still has to wade through all this crap, or see "blocked message" everywhere. Moderation is essential for most online communities. And then those 10,000 people can do the same to everyone else.
    - cubefox 3y ago
      > Person A can send you abuse, so you block them. Person B though is free to send you abuse, and so can the next 10,000 people. That's a completely fantastical example. A normal person will never have close to unmanageably many replies. This is at most a problem for celebrities, which can be granted other solutions, e.g. only people they follow can reply, which solves the problem. > Moderation is essential for most online communities. There is a big difference between forums and social media, where you choose your own filter bubble anyway.
- sanderjd 3y ago
  It's not that "moderation" is a more moderate term, it's that this is entirely a misuse of the word "censorship".
rglullis 3y ago
Which "they" are you specifically referring to? Yeah, it's a trick question.
- cubefox 3y ago
  The majority of Mastodon servers. And if you are on a minority, your server is probably blocked by the majority. So it's a general problem on Mastodon, not just one of specific servers.
  - rglullis 3y ago
    This is categorically false. I'm not a fan of the moderation policies from some in the more popular servers and I certainly don't like the idea of some overzealous moderator blocking whole instances, but this has nothing to do with (system-wide) censorship. If each instance is a home, we should expect to follow their owner's rules when we are there. No owner is forced to give you a soapbox in their home for you to talk. If you want to have your own space, with your own rules, you are free to do so. You can invite whoever you want to your home and no one is going to come after you for the things you say in your home.
    - cubefox 3y ago
      > I'm not a fan of the moderation policies from some in the more popular servers and I certainly don't like the idea of some overzealous moderator blocking whole instances, but this has nothing to do with (system-wide) censorship. It has a lot to do with system wide censorship, as in the end the effect is approximately similar. > If each instance is a home That analogy is bad, as you could equally say that each social network "is a home" and therefore can censor everyone without mercy. You could even say that each country is "a home", and if you don't like state censorship, just emigrate etc.
      - rglullis 3y ago
        > That analogy is bad, as you could equally say that each social network "is a home" and therefore can censor everyone without mercy. And that would be perfectly justifiable. None of the big social media networks are forced to provide service to a customer that they don't want. It's not an utility, it should not be treated as such. > if you don't like state censorship, just emigrate etc. - The cost of creating a Mastodon instance for yourself is negligible compared to the cost of moving to a different country - To "emigrate" to a different country implies having to abandon your original home country. In some cases, it even means having to renounce your original citizenship. Online, you can have different digital identities. All that is being asked of you is to respect the rules of the home you are in. If this is difficult for you to understand, it's not a problem of your social peers.
viraptor 3y ago
Every network has problem with censorship. You can only choose which kind of problem impacts you less.
- cubefox 3y ago
  I'm just saying that Fediverse solutions aren't automatically better than centralized ones.
- Pannoniae 3y ago
  4chan is pretty good in that regard. Not social media per se, though. I wish there were more "only as much censorship as necessary" platforms.
  - viraptor 3y ago
    Almost every platform is "only as much censorship as necessary". The threshold for necessary is just different. (4chan gets away with a lower threshold since the posts are very ephemeral)
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - Pannoniae 3y ago
      I don't really agree.... many censor things they shouldn't out of scaremongering for "safety" and "brand integrity" and "protecting the users"
      - sanderjd 3y ago
        They do it because the overwhelmingly vast majority of people don't like all that crap, and they are more interested in catering to that large group of normies than to the tiny group of edgelords out there. You just aren't their audience, and as you say, there are other places you can go for that experience.
sanderjd 3y ago
You mean with the people who host servers choosing not to host certain content? That isn't censorship, it's just people making their own choices.
- cubefox 3y ago
  It's server admins making their choices for/against users, by blocking entire instances whose politics they don't like. There is a big difference between users making their own choices and admins making them for them.
  - sanderjd 3y ago
    Ok, so what? Server admins are just private people hosting their own thing. They can do whatever they want. It's honestly none of your business what they choose to do.
    - cubefox 3y ago
      I argued that there is a lot of censorship on Mastodon. You may be okay with this (presumably because the censorship doesn't affect your own political opinions) but that's a different point.
      - sanderjd 3y ago
        It isn't "censorship", it's private people choosing not to host stuff they don't want to host. That's their choice, and it's good for them to be able to choose.
        cubefox 3y ago
        Call it what you want, the effect is the same.
        sanderjd 3y ago
        No it isn't. For instance, even though you seem to be mad about having your reach there limited by the choices of mastodon server admins, here you are freely expressing your opinions on a different website. You have not been censored.

You either have problems with censorship (or moderation, if you want to use a more moderate term), or you have problems with raving lunatics and trolls scaring everyone else off your platform...

cubefox 3y ago
You can't justify censorship by across the board smearing censored people as "raving lunatics" or "trolls". The "scaring off" excuse for censorship works for forums like HN, but it doesn't work for social media sites, since on those you choose whom to follow yourself, and even in the replies to posts (of yourself or people you voluntarily follow, and whose followers are likely similar in opinion to yourself!) you can selectively mute or block people. So individuals do not actually need any additional censorship.
- chimprich 3y ago
  > you can selectively mute or block people That's a fantasy solution. Person A can send you abuse, so you block them. Person B though is free to send you abuse, and so can the next 10,000 people. They might be a minority but even if you block them all, you've still received 10,000 hate messages and you have to spend a lot of time doing your own policing. And then everyone else still has to wade through all this crap, or see "blocked message" everywhere. Moderation is essential for most online communities. And then those 10,000 people can do the same to everyone else.
  - cubefox 3y ago
    > Person A can send you abuse, so you block them. Person B though is free to send you abuse, and so can the next 10,000 people. That's a completely fantastical example. A normal person will never have close to unmanageably many replies. This is at most a problem for celebrities, which can be granted other solutions, e.g. only people they follow can reply, which solves the problem. > Moderation is essential for most online communities. There is a big difference between forums and social media, where you choose your own filter bubble anyway.
sanderjd 3y ago
It's not that "moderation" is a more moderate term, it's that this is entirely a misuse of the word "censorship".

rglullis 3y ago

Which "they" are you specifically referring to? Yeah, it's a trick question.

cubefox 3y ago
The majority of Mastodon servers. And if you are on a minority, your server is probably blocked by the majority. So it's a general problem on Mastodon, not just one of specific servers.
- rglullis 3y ago
  This is categorically false. I'm not a fan of the moderation policies from some in the more popular servers and I certainly don't like the idea of some overzealous moderator blocking whole instances, but this has nothing to do with (system-wide) censorship. If each instance is a home, we should expect to follow their owner's rules when we are there. No owner is forced to give you a soapbox in their home for you to talk. If you want to have your own space, with your own rules, you are free to do so. You can invite whoever you want to your home and no one is going to come after you for the things you say in your home.
  - cubefox 3y ago
    > I'm not a fan of the moderation policies from some in the more popular servers and I certainly don't like the idea of some overzealous moderator blocking whole instances, but this has nothing to do with (system-wide) censorship. It has a lot to do with system wide censorship, as in the end the effect is approximately similar. > If each instance is a home That analogy is bad, as you could equally say that each social network "is a home" and therefore can censor everyone without mercy. You could even say that each country is "a home", and if you don't like state censorship, just emigrate etc.
    - rglullis 3y ago
      > That analogy is bad, as you could equally say that each social network "is a home" and therefore can censor everyone without mercy. And that would be perfectly justifiable. None of the big social media networks are forced to provide service to a customer that they don't want. It's not an utility, it should not be treated as such. > if you don't like state censorship, just emigrate etc. - The cost of creating a Mastodon instance for yourself is negligible compared to the cost of moving to a different country - To "emigrate" to a different country implies having to abandon your original home country. In some cases, it even means having to renounce your original citizenship. Online, you can have different digital identities. All that is being asked of you is to respect the rules of the home you are in. If this is difficult for you to understand, it's not a problem of your social peers.

viraptor 3y ago

Every network has problem with censorship. You can only choose which kind of problem impacts you less.

cubefox 3y ago
I'm just saying that Fediverse solutions aren't automatically better than centralized ones.
Pannoniae 3y ago
4chan is pretty good in that regard. Not social media per se, though. I wish there were more "only as much censorship as necessary" platforms.
- viraptor 3y ago
  Almost every platform is "only as much censorship as necessary". The threshold for necessary is just different. (4chan gets away with a lower threshold since the posts are very ephemeral)
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - Pannoniae 3y ago
    I don't really agree.... many censor things they shouldn't out of scaremongering for "safety" and "brand integrity" and "protecting the users"
    - sanderjd 3y ago
      They do it because the overwhelmingly vast majority of people don't like all that crap, and they are more interested in catering to that large group of normies than to the tiny group of edgelords out there. You just aren't their audience, and as you say, there are other places you can go for that experience.

sanderjd 3y ago

You mean with the people who host servers choosing not to host certain content? That isn't censorship, it's just people making their own choices.

cubefox 3y ago
It's server admins making their choices for/against users, by blocking entire instances whose politics they don't like. There is a big difference between users making their own choices and admins making them for them.
- sanderjd 3y ago
  Ok, so what? Server admins are just private people hosting their own thing. They can do whatever they want. It's honestly none of your business what they choose to do.
  - cubefox 3y ago
    I argued that there is a lot of censorship on Mastodon. You may be okay with this (presumably because the censorship doesn't affect your own political opinions) but that's a different point.
    - sanderjd 3y ago
      It isn't "censorship", it's private people choosing not to host stuff they don't want to host. That's their choice, and it's good for them to be able to choose.
      - cubefox 3y ago
        Call it what you want, the effect is the same.
        sanderjd 3y ago
        No it isn't. For instance, even though you seem to be mad about having your reach there limited by the choices of mastodon server admins, here you are freely expressing your opinions on a different website. You have not been censored.