5 ms·

> That is a gross misreading of how the Fediverse operates. And then you go on to enumerate various important ways in which it is not a gross misread at all.

> That is a gross misreading of how the Fediverse operates. And then you go on to enumerate various important ways in which it is not a gross misread at all. "The characteristics of a given instance do have an impact on...": "...what technical features are available to you" "...how remote instances interact with yours" "...criteria for determining what traffic or patterns are or are not permissible in remote instances"

dredmorbius 3y ago
First, available technical features don't impact community aspects. It's something to be aware of, and influenced my own decision to join toot.cat, though the fact that the admin is someone I've known online for over a decade played a larger role. Secondly, the issues around moderation also matter, but: - Blocks are reasonably rare, but generally implemented with good reason. Well-administered instances which play well with others tend very much not to get blocked. - Increasingly, moderators are sharing blocklists through Fediblock (<https://fediverse.wiki/wiki/Fediblock https://fediverse.wiki/wiki/Fediblock>) or similar mechanisms. So if a block exists on one well-administered instance, it's likely to exist on numerous others. - Blocked instances typically have a small number of members, though there are a few exceptions. (Large Japanese instances on which Loli features predominantly is the principle exception of which I'm aware, or alt-right sites such as Gab and Truth Social.) - Instance moderation is on a continuum. "Limited" simply means there is limited federation, but that content won't appear on the Federated timeline, and that follow requests require an explicit approval. (I see this largely for profiles on infosec.exchange.) That's a relatively low bump. - Toot.cat does moderate instances extensively, with 476 moderated instances listed at <https://toot.cat/about https://toot.cat/about>. 138 of those are "Limited" (see above), 338 are suspended, meaning no federation occurs. The top 20 moderation rationales are: 50 Reason not available 18 Freeze peach instance 17 Transphobic admin 11 Admin using a wide variety of slurs 10 Admin using racist slurs 10 Covid denialism 8 Edgelord admin 8 Racist admin 6 Lamp instance(s) 5 Admin shitposting to #fediblock 5 Anti-moderation admin 5 Cryptocurrency-oriented instance 5 Harassment, slurs, fascism, etc. 5 Transphobic harassment from admin 4 Adming spamming #fediblock 4 Anti-LGBTQ+ admin 4 Conspiracy theory 4 Covid denialism and other disinfo 3 Admin using ableist slurs 3 Anti-moderation instance "Freeze peach" is often code for limited or no moderation, and is associated with pronounced and unaddressed abuse. "Lamp" is a specific abusive user, see: <https://mew.toot.cat/mw/Usr/lamp https://mew.toot.cat/mw/Usr/lamp>. I haven't (yet) checked to see how many profiles exist or are active (w/in the past month) on the blocked instances, but I strongly suspect that most are quite small, or no longer active. Just for grins, I'm looking at a random selection of 10 instances blocked by toot.cat ('sort -R | head -10' off the list of blocked instances): neckbbeard.xyz: Server not found hermitmountain.top: Timeout on Web access dobbs.town: Timeout on Web access ortodogs.info: Unable to connect touha.me: Single-user nnia.space: 282 active users (blocked as pedophile instance) gamers.exposed: Appears inactive? Video site? neenster.org: Unknown (users not reported). Principally Nina Paly's personal instance as I understand. cybercriminal.eu: Timeout on Web access mastinator.com: Read-only implementation, presumably no users. So that's 2 actives out of ten listings, with the largest having 282 members (small by Fediverse standards). Keep in mind that blocks are appealable, both by the remote instance and local users. And the threat of blocks is a strong incentive for both admins and users to execute and expect effective and socially-conscious moderation. Edgelords can play, but they'll play in a vastly reduced space.
- BugsJustFindMe 3y ago
  > First, available technical features don't impact community aspects. That's a naive take, but I think it's worth moving on to something much more important... > Blocks are reasonably rare, but generally implemented with good reason. Well-administered instances which play well with others tend very much not to get blocked... I notice that you keep using weasel words like "reasonably" and "generally" and "tend" and "typically" with casually dismissive motte-and-bailey appeals to "well-administered" and "good reason" and "small number of members". You do not appear to be engaging in good faith. Please address the fact from your own statements that your participation globally depends on whether another instance administrator likes your instance's administrator, and explain why you believe that's not an issue relating to separation of communities and server administration policies, and explain how that's not a direct result of demanding that identity providers be communities where absolute consensus dictates both administrative policy and also administrator personal behavior. > The top 20 moderation rationales are: > 50 Reason not available > 18 [Someone who isn't you did something that someone else didn't like] > 17 [Someone who isn't you did something that someone else didn't like] > 11 [Someone who isn't you did something that someone else didn't like] > 10 [Someone who isn't you did something that someone else didn't like] > 10 [Someone who isn't you did something that someone else didn't like] > 8 [Someone who isn't you did something that someone else didn't like] > [etc.] I hope you understand the absurdity here of binding identity provision and restrictions on who you personally are allowed to communicate with to disputes between distributed instance administrators that may have nothing to do with you personally purely by virtue of deciding that identity providers must necessarily be consensus communities.
  - dredmorbius 3y ago
    The starting point of this discussion was spankalee's statement that "Making your Mastodon account provider also be a community is a fatal flaw of Mastodon". I pointed out that this was largely not the case. The Fediverse presently has something north of 14 million registered accounts: <https://mastodon.social/@mastodonusercount/111103025156276432 https://mastodon.social/@mastodonusercount/11110302515627643...> I'd responded with what factors are distinguished between specific instances, noting specifically which of those affect broader community interactions and which don't. That's based on my own participation on Mastodon since 2016-7, across a number of different instances. For the rest, I'm describing both in narrative and using actual instance and sampled data what the impacts of moderation are. You don't seem to like either my use of data, or how I narrate it, but I can in fact assure you that both correspond strongly to my experience over the past seven years. In particular. I'll note that the moderation rationales I'm reporting come directly from toot.cat, and that though I'm friends with the admin I'm not a moderator there myself. You're the one who's editorialised those rationales. The impact of blocks is best measured by how many active Fediverse profiles are affected by them. That's something which instance block counts addresses poorly. My sampled check helps validate my own gut impression, again, that most blocks are against small, and often inactive instances. You're ... completely ignoring this fact in your umbrage. I'd also make the argument that harassing people for their backgrounds, beliefs, and lifestyles which are in no way harmful to others is highly disruptive. You may choose to deny this, but that's not well supported by extensive experience and research. A key function and attraction of the platform is that individual instances can make their own individual federation options. And yet, even with extensive moderation the total impacts seem fairly minor. I'll concede that current mechanisms make this less fully transparent than it might be, but the information is available, and in general issues around instance-level moderation is an ongoing area of Mastodon and Fediverse development. But if you're so opposed to such a fundamental aspect of the Fediverse, you'll probably not find the overall concept particularly attractive. I'm interested in question of the magnitude of blocking in terms of affected profiles, by the way, and am looking for better ways to get a broader read of how widely blocks are used on different instances, and how many active Fediverse members are restricted by such blocks. Right now, that involves my manually looking up individual instances in a GUI browser session, though I believe there may be APIs which can help with that. Just for grins, I'm looking at infosec.exchange, itself moderated ("Limited") by toot.cat (on the basis i.e. hosts law enforcement and intel agency accounts). Jerry Bell doesn't strike me as especially socially sensitive. Infosec.exchange moderates 145 instances, 137 are Suspended, 8 are Limited. Reasons (complete list): 114 Reason not available 3 Hate speech 3 Unmoderated racism 2 Part of free/hate speech network 2 Violent extremism 1 Admin uses hate speech 1 Almost exclusively an instance for posting porn. 1 An instance dedicated to bots that autopost animated/anime porn. Pretty massive draw on resources at best. Going to get someone fired for what’s in the timeline at worst. 1 At owner instance request 1 Blocked to resolve confusing bleed over due to Glaceon blocking infosec.exchange 1 Bypasses blocks and makes all toots public without consent 1 Generally awful free speech instance supporting racial and homophobic hate 1 Highly offensive and violent hate speech instance 1 Highly offensive content 1 Hosts far right content, offensive racial memes, hate speech, and clearly attempting to out MAGA truthsocial.com 1 Mutual silence in place 1 Racism promoted by admin 1 Should be obvious 1 Significant source of hate speech, racial slurs, and targeted harassment. 1 Supports/tolerates hate speech. 1 The instance appears to be up to no good. Block in place due to shenanigans from a user on that instance, will reassess. 1 Twitter scraper creating account mirrors 1 Under review 1 Unmoderated homophobia 1 Unmoderated racism and hate speech 1 Unmoderated spam and other nonsense Again, this on an instance which is not particularly following the Left's social Zeitgeist. One of the "Limited" moderations is on toot.cat, as a mutual silencing. I've not compared the T.C. and I.E. lists for shared blocks, though I see a few. One of the largest Mastodon instances is mastodon.social (operated by Mastodon's author, Eugen Rochko). Moderated: 235, Suspended: 220, Limited: 15, rationales: 68 Third-party bots 64 Hate speech 43 Inappropriate content 23 Harassment 18 Spam 4 Misinformation 4 Transphobia 3 MAPs 2 Reason not available 1 Bot that announces blocks 1 Botnet 1 Conspiracy theories 1 Mirroring other Mastodon accounts without permission 1 Misinformation and conspiracy theories 1 Preparing for announced shutdown For those three instances, unique / shared blocks are: 582 1 (blocked by only one instance) 77 2 (blocked by two) 40 3 (blocked by all three) Finally, I also recommend moderator dang's HN guidance: <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37366825 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37366825>

dredmorbius 3y ago

First, available technical features don't impact community aspects. It's something to be aware of, and influenced my own decision to join toot.cat, though the fact that the admin is someone I've known online for over a decade played a larger role. Secondly, the issues around moderation also matter, but: - Blocks are reasonably rare, but generally implemented with good reason. Well-administered instances which play well with others tend very much not to get blocked. - Increasingly, moderators are sharing blocklists through Fediblock (<https://fediverse.wiki/wiki/Fediblock https://fediverse.wiki/wiki/Fediblock>) or similar mechanisms. So if a block exists on one well-administered instance, it's likely to exist on numerous others. - Blocked instances typically have a small number of members, though there are a few exceptions. (Large Japanese instances on which Loli features predominantly is the principle exception of which I'm aware, or alt-right sites such as Gab and Truth Social.) - Instance moderation is on a continuum. "Limited" simply means there is limited federation, but that content won't appear on the Federated timeline, and that follow requests require an explicit approval. (I see this largely for profiles on infosec.exchange.) That's a relatively low bump. - Toot.cat does moderate instances extensively, with 476 moderated instances listed at <https://toot.cat/about https://toot.cat/about>. 138 of those are "Limited" (see above), 338 are suspended, meaning no federation occurs. The top 20 moderation rationales are: 50 Reason not available 18 Freeze peach instance 17 Transphobic admin 11 Admin using a wide variety of slurs 10 Admin using racist slurs 10 Covid denialism 8 Edgelord admin 8 Racist admin 6 Lamp instance(s) 5 Admin shitposting to #fediblock 5 Anti-moderation admin 5 Cryptocurrency-oriented instance 5 Harassment, slurs, fascism, etc. 5 Transphobic harassment from admin 4 Adming spamming #fediblock 4 Anti-LGBTQ+ admin 4 Conspiracy theory 4 Covid denialism and other disinfo 3 Admin using ableist slurs 3 Anti-moderation instance "Freeze peach" is often code for limited or no moderation, and is associated with pronounced and unaddressed abuse. "Lamp" is a specific abusive user, see: <https://mew.toot.cat/mw/Usr/lamp https://mew.toot.cat/mw/Usr/lamp>. I haven't (yet) checked to see how many profiles exist or are active (w/in the past month) on the blocked instances, but I strongly suspect that most are quite small, or no longer active. Just for grins, I'm looking at a random selection of 10 instances blocked by toot.cat ('sort -R | head -10' off the list of blocked instances): neckbbeard.xyz: Server not found hermitmountain.top: Timeout on Web access dobbs.town: Timeout on Web access ortodogs.info: Unable to connect touha.me: Single-user nnia.space: 282 active users (blocked as pedophile instance) gamers.exposed: Appears inactive? Video site? neenster.org: Unknown (users not reported). Principally Nina Paly's personal instance as I understand. cybercriminal.eu: Timeout on Web access mastinator.com: Read-only implementation, presumably no users. So that's 2 actives out of ten listings, with the largest having 282 members (small by Fediverse standards). Keep in mind that blocks are appealable, both by the remote instance and local users. And the threat of blocks is a strong incentive for both admins and users to execute and expect effective and socially-conscious moderation. Edgelords can play, but they'll play in a vastly reduced space.

BugsJustFindMe 3y ago
> First, available technical features don't impact community aspects. That's a naive take, but I think it's worth moving on to something much more important... > Blocks are reasonably rare, but generally implemented with good reason. Well-administered instances which play well with others tend very much not to get blocked... I notice that you keep using weasel words like "reasonably" and "generally" and "tend" and "typically" with casually dismissive motte-and-bailey appeals to "well-administered" and "good reason" and "small number of members". You do not appear to be engaging in good faith. Please address the fact from your own statements that your participation globally depends on whether another instance administrator likes your instance's administrator, and explain why you believe that's not an issue relating to separation of communities and server administration policies, and explain how that's not a direct result of demanding that identity providers be communities where absolute consensus dictates both administrative policy and also administrator personal behavior. > The top 20 moderation rationales are: > 50 Reason not available > 18 [Someone who isn't you did something that someone else didn't like] > 17 [Someone who isn't you did something that someone else didn't like] > 11 [Someone who isn't you did something that someone else didn't like] > 10 [Someone who isn't you did something that someone else didn't like] > 10 [Someone who isn't you did something that someone else didn't like] > 8 [Someone who isn't you did something that someone else didn't like] > [etc.] I hope you understand the absurdity here of binding identity provision and restrictions on who you personally are allowed to communicate with to disputes between distributed instance administrators that may have nothing to do with you personally purely by virtue of deciding that identity providers must necessarily be consensus communities.
- dredmorbius 3y ago
  The starting point of this discussion was spankalee's statement that "Making your Mastodon account provider also be a community is a fatal flaw of Mastodon". I pointed out that this was largely not the case. The Fediverse presently has something north of 14 million registered accounts: <https://mastodon.social/@mastodonusercount/111103025156276432 https://mastodon.social/@mastodonusercount/11110302515627643...> I'd responded with what factors are distinguished between specific instances, noting specifically which of those affect broader community interactions and which don't. That's based on my own participation on Mastodon since 2016-7, across a number of different instances. For the rest, I'm describing both in narrative and using actual instance and sampled data what the impacts of moderation are. You don't seem to like either my use of data, or how I narrate it, but I can in fact assure you that both correspond strongly to my experience over the past seven years. In particular. I'll note that the moderation rationales I'm reporting come directly from toot.cat, and that though I'm friends with the admin I'm not a moderator there myself. You're the one who's editorialised those rationales. The impact of blocks is best measured by how many active Fediverse profiles are affected by them. That's something which instance block counts addresses poorly. My sampled check helps validate my own gut impression, again, that most blocks are against small, and often inactive instances. You're ... completely ignoring this fact in your umbrage. I'd also make the argument that harassing people for their backgrounds, beliefs, and lifestyles which are in no way harmful to others is highly disruptive. You may choose to deny this, but that's not well supported by extensive experience and research. A key function and attraction of the platform is that individual instances can make their own individual federation options. And yet, even with extensive moderation the total impacts seem fairly minor. I'll concede that current mechanisms make this less fully transparent than it might be, but the information is available, and in general issues around instance-level moderation is an ongoing area of Mastodon and Fediverse development. But if you're so opposed to such a fundamental aspect of the Fediverse, you'll probably not find the overall concept particularly attractive. I'm interested in question of the magnitude of blocking in terms of affected profiles, by the way, and am looking for better ways to get a broader read of how widely blocks are used on different instances, and how many active Fediverse members are restricted by such blocks. Right now, that involves my manually looking up individual instances in a GUI browser session, though I believe there may be APIs which can help with that. Just for grins, I'm looking at infosec.exchange, itself moderated ("Limited") by toot.cat (on the basis i.e. hosts law enforcement and intel agency accounts). Jerry Bell doesn't strike me as especially socially sensitive. Infosec.exchange moderates 145 instances, 137 are Suspended, 8 are Limited. Reasons (complete list): 114 Reason not available 3 Hate speech 3 Unmoderated racism 2 Part of free/hate speech network 2 Violent extremism 1 Admin uses hate speech 1 Almost exclusively an instance for posting porn. 1 An instance dedicated to bots that autopost animated/anime porn. Pretty massive draw on resources at best. Going to get someone fired for what’s in the timeline at worst. 1 At owner instance request 1 Blocked to resolve confusing bleed over due to Glaceon blocking infosec.exchange 1 Bypasses blocks and makes all toots public without consent 1 Generally awful free speech instance supporting racial and homophobic hate 1 Highly offensive and violent hate speech instance 1 Highly offensive content 1 Hosts far right content, offensive racial memes, hate speech, and clearly attempting to out MAGA truthsocial.com 1 Mutual silence in place 1 Racism promoted by admin 1 Should be obvious 1 Significant source of hate speech, racial slurs, and targeted harassment. 1 Supports/tolerates hate speech. 1 The instance appears to be up to no good. Block in place due to shenanigans from a user on that instance, will reassess. 1 Twitter scraper creating account mirrors 1 Under review 1 Unmoderated homophobia 1 Unmoderated racism and hate speech 1 Unmoderated spam and other nonsense Again, this on an instance which is not particularly following the Left's social Zeitgeist. One of the "Limited" moderations is on toot.cat, as a mutual silencing. I've not compared the T.C. and I.E. lists for shared blocks, though I see a few. One of the largest Mastodon instances is mastodon.social (operated by Mastodon's author, Eugen Rochko). Moderated: 235, Suspended: 220, Limited: 15, rationales: 68 Third-party bots 64 Hate speech 43 Inappropriate content 23 Harassment 18 Spam 4 Misinformation 4 Transphobia 3 MAPs 2 Reason not available 1 Bot that announces blocks 1 Botnet 1 Conspiracy theories 1 Mirroring other Mastodon accounts without permission 1 Misinformation and conspiracy theories 1 Preparing for announced shutdown For those three instances, unique / shared blocks are: 582 1 (blocked by only one instance) 77 2 (blocked by two) 40 3 (blocked by all three) Finally, I also recommend moderator dang's HN guidance: <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37366825 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37366825>