4 ms·

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.
      - cubefox 3y ago
        > 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. The effect of big social media sites blocking free speech are not much different from the state doing it. It's like saying: "You are perfectly allowed to state your opinions! (but only at home, where nobody hears them)" This wouldn't be functionally different from the situation in China. > The cost of creating a Mastodon instance for yourself Doesn't solve the problem, as free speech instances get blocked by the other big instances.
        rglullis 3y ago
        Your problem is not of "free speech". Your problem is that you feel entitled to other people's attention, and you think if you are not "getting heard" by them, you are being censored. Sorry, this is complete bullshit. > but only at home, where nobody hears them You can still invite people to your own home. If nobody is hearing it, it's because they are not interested to join you.
        cubefox 3y ago
        > Your problem is not of "free speech". Your problem is that you feel entitled to other people's attention, and you think if you are not "getting heard" by them, you are being censored. That's false. On social media, everyone is free to follow just the people they want to follow. Muting is also an option. Your problem is that you hate free speech. You don't want to just choose what you see yourself, you want also censor what other people are allowed see. > You can still invite people to your own home. Yes, that's possible in China as well. According to you, this justifies state censorship. After all, you are only censored in public on social media.
        rglullis 3y ago
        > That's false. On social media, everyone is free to follow just the people they want to follow. Muting is also an option. This right here shows why you don´t understand why instance-wide blocking might be needed. I can give you one clear example: my instance is running in Germany. As such, I need to comply with German laws. Now, if anyone from my instance follows someone from a "free speech extremist" instance and my server ends up with Nazi propaganda, guess who will be under investigation? Substitute "Nazi propaganda" for "instances for sex-workers who might be victims of people trafficking" if you prefer. > Yes, that's possible in China as well. No, it's not. The Chinese police will come after you if you try to organize any type of opposition and they will have the power to hurt you without a fair trial. Eugen is not going to do anything with you if you go talk shit about him on your instance. I know because I did it. ;)
    - sanderjd 3y ago
      You're so close to getting it. It's a good analogy because you could equally say that each social network "is a home". That is indeed the case. And yes, countries do indeed also get to choose their own laws through their own government process. I'm happy to live in a country where our laws forbid government restrictions on speech but allow private "homes" to make their own rules. I think that's the right balance. But I don't get to tell other nations what their laws should be.
      - cubefox 3y ago
        > And yes, countries do indeed also get to choose their own laws through their own government process. Not really if you censor speech that challenge the status quo.
        sanderjd 3y ago
        You mean if the government of that nation censors speech that challenges the status quo? I think it's very bad for governments to do that, and would go to some length to ensure that the government of my own nation does not allow that, but I also don't get a direct say in what the governments of other nations do and how the citizens of those nations respond. I can certainly criticize from afar, but I don't get to vote or protest or fight to change the laws of those nations.
        cubefox 3y ago
        > You mean if the government of that nation censors speech that challenges the status quo? I think it's very bad for governments to do that And if the major social networks are doing it, wouldn't that also be bad?
        sanderjd 3y ago
        No. The private freedom of association is important. I'm similarly free to disagree with the choices the social network makes, as are you. But it is not bad for them to make their own choices, it's good.
- goodpoint 3y ago
  Absolutely false.
- WaffleIronMaker 3y ago
  I've been using Mastodon for about a month now, and I've never had any issues with censorship, specifically regarding queer, furry, and nsfw content.
  - cubefox 3y ago
    The censorship is mainly of people or instances which aren't left-wing.
    - rglullis 3y ago
      Can you point to specific cases of censorship that you experienced?
      - cubefox 3y ago
        It's publicly known that large instances block instances that aren't left-wing.
        rglullis 3y ago
        My instance is not "left-wing", I have had plenty of (civil) arguments with people all around the spectrum and no one is trying to cancel me because of that. I also have so far managed to go by without having to block any instance (but I did personally block a bunch of trolls and assholes from poa.st and fse) I was initially inclined to invite you to my instance as well, but I'm starting to get the feeling that you are more interested in not being called out for any BS you put out than in a healthy social discourse.
        cubefox 3y ago
        The large instances block other instances whose politics they don't like, and since the majority of Mastodon has a certain political direction, that in turn results in homogeneity in which political direction is blocked. It's admin tribalism that goes beyond what individual users can decide.

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.
    - cubefox 3y ago
      > 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. The effect of big social media sites blocking free speech are not much different from the state doing it. It's like saying: "You are perfectly allowed to state your opinions! (but only at home, where nobody hears them)" This wouldn't be functionally different from the situation in China. > The cost of creating a Mastodon instance for yourself Doesn't solve the problem, as free speech instances get blocked by the other big instances.
      - rglullis 3y ago
        Your problem is not of "free speech". Your problem is that you feel entitled to other people's attention, and you think if you are not "getting heard" by them, you are being censored. Sorry, this is complete bullshit. > but only at home, where nobody hears them You can still invite people to your own home. If nobody is hearing it, it's because they are not interested to join you.
        cubefox 3y ago
        > Your problem is not of "free speech". Your problem is that you feel entitled to other people's attention, and you think if you are not "getting heard" by them, you are being censored. That's false. On social media, everyone is free to follow just the people they want to follow. Muting is also an option. Your problem is that you hate free speech. You don't want to just choose what you see yourself, you want also censor what other people are allowed see. > You can still invite people to your own home. Yes, that's possible in China as well. According to you, this justifies state censorship. After all, you are only censored in public on social media.
        rglullis 3y ago
        > That's false. On social media, everyone is free to follow just the people they want to follow. Muting is also an option. This right here shows why you don´t understand why instance-wide blocking might be needed. I can give you one clear example: my instance is running in Germany. As such, I need to comply with German laws. Now, if anyone from my instance follows someone from a "free speech extremist" instance and my server ends up with Nazi propaganda, guess who will be under investigation? Substitute "Nazi propaganda" for "instances for sex-workers who might be victims of people trafficking" if you prefer. > Yes, that's possible in China as well. No, it's not. The Chinese police will come after you if you try to organize any type of opposition and they will have the power to hurt you without a fair trial. Eugen is not going to do anything with you if you go talk shit about him on your instance. I know because I did it. ;)
  - sanderjd 3y ago
    You're so close to getting it. It's a good analogy because you could equally say that each social network "is a home". That is indeed the case. And yes, countries do indeed also get to choose their own laws through their own government process. I'm happy to live in a country where our laws forbid government restrictions on speech but allow private "homes" to make their own rules. I think that's the right balance. But I don't get to tell other nations what their laws should be.
    - cubefox 3y ago
      > And yes, countries do indeed also get to choose their own laws through their own government process. Not really if you censor speech that challenge the status quo.
      - sanderjd 3y ago
        You mean if the government of that nation censors speech that challenges the status quo? I think it's very bad for governments to do that, and would go to some length to ensure that the government of my own nation does not allow that, but I also don't get a direct say in what the governments of other nations do and how the citizens of those nations respond. I can certainly criticize from afar, but I don't get to vote or protest or fight to change the laws of those nations.
        cubefox 3y ago
        > You mean if the government of that nation censors speech that challenges the status quo? I think it's very bad for governments to do that And if the major social networks are doing it, wouldn't that also be bad?
        sanderjd 3y ago
        No. The private freedom of association is important. I'm similarly free to disagree with the choices the social network makes, as are you. But it is not bad for them to make their own choices, it's good.
goodpoint 3y ago
Absolutely false.
WaffleIronMaker 3y ago
I've been using Mastodon for about a month now, and I've never had any issues with censorship, specifically regarding queer, furry, and nsfw content.
- cubefox 3y ago
  The censorship is mainly of people or instances which aren't left-wing.
  - rglullis 3y ago
    Can you point to specific cases of censorship that you experienced?
    - cubefox 3y ago
      It's publicly known that large instances block instances that aren't left-wing.
      - rglullis 3y ago
        My instance is not "left-wing", I have had plenty of (civil) arguments with people all around the spectrum and no one is trying to cancel me because of that. I also have so far managed to go by without having to block any instance (but I did personally block a bunch of trolls and assholes from poa.st and fse) I was initially inclined to invite you to my instance as well, but I'm starting to get the feeling that you are more interested in not being called out for any BS you put out than in a healthy social discourse.
        cubefox 3y ago
        The large instances block other instances whose politics they don't like, and since the majority of Mastodon has a certain political direction, that in turn results in homogeneity in which political direction is blocked. It's admin tribalism that goes beyond what individual users can decide.