4 ms·

If you think BlueSky is political, Mastodon is worse. Mastodon ends up creating significant echo chambers where admins ban communication with other instances f

If you think BlueSky is political, Mastodon is worse. Mastodon ends up creating significant echo chambers where admins ban communication with other instances for having people with different opinions to them (rather than just delisting in the public feed) and on can ban you and stop you moving your data to another instance. On Mastodon, admins can also be pressured into banning users by other admins under fear of having their instances blocked, and admins are usually political activists. I've avoided BlueSky because people are allowed to boast and defend being attracted to kids or spam death threats (including addresses attached), but not have differing political opinions, even when they're arguably mainstream.

BodyCulture 2y ago
Can you please give some more details about the pressure methods in mastodon you are writing about, this is very interesting and important. Is there any systematic study going on about the mechanism of censorship in the fediverse?
- ChocolateGod 2y ago
  Eh, I don't have any links to hand, but I vividly remember when I used Mastodon an instance of an admin being tagged and pressured to remove an individual off their server or be blocked. was around a year ago
  - Zak 2y ago
    From what I've seen, some niche servers have very detailed and very strict rules intended to address the needs of certain marginalized groups. An example I've seen is requiring a content warning for any image where a person or animal is staring directly into the lens, appearing to make eye contact with the viewer. Of course pressuring mainstream servers to adopt such a rule is not reasonable. Automatically applying a content warning to all media from servers that don't have the same rule would be a good solution. Bluesky's labelers provide a way to do something similar, but I don't think the Bluesky appview has a way to express something like "blur all media without the 'safe for my needs' label".
- BeetleB 2y ago
  Things like one instance banning another whole instance because that instance is not agreeing to the same moderation policies as the first. I think some instances block all Pleroma instances, because there is an association of Pleroma being used by right wing folks. Here are failed attempts to ban Pleroma instances outright: https://github.com/mastodon/mastodon/issues/11816 https://github.com/mastodon/mastodon/issues/11816 https://github.com/mastodon/mastodon/issues/9708 https://github.com/mastodon/mastodon/issues/9708 Here's an example of an instance that blocks other instances if the other instance doesn't have a code of conduct similar to theirs: https://mastodon.art/about https://mastodon.art/about Note - they partially block mastodon.social!
  - aftbit 2y ago
    >mastodon.art is a safe space instance So don't join them if you don't want to be coddled. Anyone who does wants to engage with a different slice of the fediverse, and why do you care if they don't see you?
    - BeetleB 2y ago
      I'm not sure what this has to do with my comment or the one I was replying to.
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
  - amatecha 2y ago
    fyi mastodon.social is by far the biggest (almost sole) source of spam, thus more and more servers are "limiting" it (as opposed to outright blocking/defederating) so people only see posts from users they explicitly follow from that server.
- tqwhite 2y ago
  I was in a discussion with someone and the instance just booted me out. No explanation. No appeal. I still had a handful of windows open to various conversations (I’m a slob) and could not find a single reason. I shopped around for another home and found fussy rules. I got rejected for reasons that made no sense. It encourages narrow minded balkanization and it retains your identity so you have to form a new one.
vidarh 2y ago
Mastodon is worse if you pick servers that insist on being activist, and bother to care about the drama, sure. You don't need to do either.
- griomnib 2y ago
  But then you need to research the severs, shop around, and a bunch of other shit people don’t have time for. A bad user experience is just that: bad.
  - XorNot 2y ago
    I mean sure, but it's entirely an optional communal space? Like...who cares? The only reason there was even an opinion about Twitter was mainstream news started reporting "what was on Twitter" and it's still centralized in that way - it "felt" non-optional.
    - Karrot_Kream 2y ago
      Some people enjoy "socializing in the large". For one, I already have a robust personal friend group grounded in traditional social spaces (like my local physical community, former coworkers, friends from my college days, etc) that I don't need to find a communal space online to engage in "socializing in the small". There's nothing wrong with "socializing in the small" of course but for me that's just a group chat.
  - amatecha 2y ago
    Mastodon/ActivityPub is not Twitter. It's not millions of people in one stadium. It's more like dozens of rooms in a big mansion. (sorry, the analogy isn't perfect) ... You don't just walk into the room with a bunch of nazis because that place is probably going to suck to have a conversation in. Look at what the conversations and social expectations are before you jump in, and things will work out a lot better for everyone. That's not a bad user experience, that's just "socializing with fellow humans".
    - 2y ago
sureglymop 2y ago
I think that is federation working as intended. These instance admins are exercising their right to free speech by not federating with instances that contain content they disagree with or disallow on their instance. I think it's not at all comparable to a corporate entity like X being in full control and able to censor any content. You may create your own instance and federate with the instances you want. If an instance chooses not to federate with yours you get to decide what's more important to you, your principles or their content. The solution is to create your own instance. I understand your frustrations but I have a hard time being empathetic to these issues when you are using someone elses instance, probably administered by volunteers in their spare time.
- SpicyLemonZest 2y ago
  Of course they have a right to free speech, but when I'm choosing a platform it's the user experience that matters to me and not the rights of the operators. Twitter lets me visit or follow any other account on the platform and see what they have to say, and the ability to do that across a wide range of interests and viewpoints is exactly why I use it. If Mastodon requires setting up a custom server to replicate that experience, it's not a good replacement for me.
  - ChocolateGod 2y ago
    Look at how many instances agreed to block Threads even before it added ActivityPub support because Mark Zuckerberg doesn't ban (legal) opinions and comments he doesn't agree with. Some people are so insecure about their own opinions that the pure idea that someone exists that might not agree the same is a threat, never mind seeing their content.
    - rchaud 2y ago
      Mastodon.social is the single largest instance and does not block Threads. Where did you get this information, and furthermore, how did you manage to draw a line from that to "Zuck supports free speech, Mastodon doesn't like that?"
  - 2y ago
rayiner 2y ago
They should complete the circle and allow instances to invade and take over other instances/subjecate other instances’ users.
glenstein 2y ago
>Mastodon ends up creating significant echo chambers where admins ban communication with other instances for having people with different opinions to them The echo chamber argument itself is a politicized argument that I think fundamentally misunderstands why communities converging on common values can be beneficial rather than simply echoing. If people are interested in astronomy, or tech security, or FOSS, or politics, weeding the garden leads to more dynamic, diverse and nuanced communication, not less, and the diagnosis of such things as "echo chambers" is a shallow misdiagnosis. Opening up your garden to weeds kills everything and leads to takeover of the one dominant kind of weed that already dominates everywhere else, which is more echoey.
- int_19h 2y ago
  The problem is that many Mastodon servers go far beyond what you describe. Your server can blocked because it doesn't block somebody else, for example. Or because it doesn't have such and such in its rules.

BodyCulture 2y ago

Can you please give some more details about the pressure methods in mastodon you are writing about, this is very interesting and important. Is there any systematic study going on about the mechanism of censorship in the fediverse?

ChocolateGod 2y ago
Eh, I don't have any links to hand, but I vividly remember when I used Mastodon an instance of an admin being tagged and pressured to remove an individual off their server or be blocked. was around a year ago
- Zak 2y ago
  From what I've seen, some niche servers have very detailed and very strict rules intended to address the needs of certain marginalized groups. An example I've seen is requiring a content warning for any image where a person or animal is staring directly into the lens, appearing to make eye contact with the viewer. Of course pressuring mainstream servers to adopt such a rule is not reasonable. Automatically applying a content warning to all media from servers that don't have the same rule would be a good solution. Bluesky's labelers provide a way to do something similar, but I don't think the Bluesky appview has a way to express something like "blur all media without the 'safe for my needs' label".
BeetleB 2y ago
Things like one instance banning another whole instance because that instance is not agreeing to the same moderation policies as the first. I think some instances block all Pleroma instances, because there is an association of Pleroma being used by right wing folks. Here are failed attempts to ban Pleroma instances outright: https://github.com/mastodon/mastodon/issues/11816 https://github.com/mastodon/mastodon/issues/11816 https://github.com/mastodon/mastodon/issues/9708 https://github.com/mastodon/mastodon/issues/9708 Here's an example of an instance that blocks other instances if the other instance doesn't have a code of conduct similar to theirs: https://mastodon.art/about https://mastodon.art/about Note - they partially block mastodon.social!
- aftbit 2y ago
  >mastodon.art is a safe space instance So don't join them if you don't want to be coddled. Anyone who does wants to engage with a different slice of the fediverse, and why do you care if they don't see you?
  - BeetleB 2y ago
    I'm not sure what this has to do with my comment or the one I was replying to.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
- amatecha 2y ago
  fyi mastodon.social is by far the biggest (almost sole) source of spam, thus more and more servers are "limiting" it (as opposed to outright blocking/defederating) so people only see posts from users they explicitly follow from that server.
tqwhite 2y ago
I was in a discussion with someone and the instance just booted me out. No explanation. No appeal. I still had a handful of windows open to various conversations (I’m a slob) and could not find a single reason. I shopped around for another home and found fussy rules. I got rejected for reasons that made no sense. It encourages narrow minded balkanization and it retains your identity so you have to form a new one.

vidarh 2y ago

Mastodon is worse if you pick servers that insist on being activist, and bother to care about the drama, sure. You don't need to do either.

griomnib 2y ago
But then you need to research the severs, shop around, and a bunch of other shit people don’t have time for. A bad user experience is just that: bad.
- XorNot 2y ago
  I mean sure, but it's entirely an optional communal space? Like...who cares? The only reason there was even an opinion about Twitter was mainstream news started reporting "what was on Twitter" and it's still centralized in that way - it "felt" non-optional.
  - Karrot_Kream 2y ago
    Some people enjoy "socializing in the large". For one, I already have a robust personal friend group grounded in traditional social spaces (like my local physical community, former coworkers, friends from my college days, etc) that I don't need to find a communal space online to engage in "socializing in the small". There's nothing wrong with "socializing in the small" of course but for me that's just a group chat.
- amatecha 2y ago
  Mastodon/ActivityPub is not Twitter. It's not millions of people in one stadium. It's more like dozens of rooms in a big mansion. (sorry, the analogy isn't perfect) ... You don't just walk into the room with a bunch of nazis because that place is probably going to suck to have a conversation in. Look at what the conversations and social expectations are before you jump in, and things will work out a lot better for everyone. That's not a bad user experience, that's just "socializing with fellow humans".
  - 2y ago

sureglymop 2y ago

I think that is federation working as intended. These instance admins are exercising their right to free speech by not federating with instances that contain content they disagree with or disallow on their instance. I think it's not at all comparable to a corporate entity like X being in full control and able to censor any content. You may create your own instance and federate with the instances you want. If an instance chooses not to federate with yours you get to decide what's more important to you, your principles or their content. The solution is to create your own instance. I understand your frustrations but I have a hard time being empathetic to these issues when you are using someone elses instance, probably administered by volunteers in their spare time.

SpicyLemonZest 2y ago
Of course they have a right to free speech, but when I'm choosing a platform it's the user experience that matters to me and not the rights of the operators. Twitter lets me visit or follow any other account on the platform and see what they have to say, and the ability to do that across a wide range of interests and viewpoints is exactly why I use it. If Mastodon requires setting up a custom server to replicate that experience, it's not a good replacement for me.
- ChocolateGod 2y ago
  Look at how many instances agreed to block Threads even before it added ActivityPub support because Mark Zuckerberg doesn't ban (legal) opinions and comments he doesn't agree with. Some people are so insecure about their own opinions that the pure idea that someone exists that might not agree the same is a threat, never mind seeing their content.
  - rchaud 2y ago
    Mastodon.social is the single largest instance and does not block Threads. Where did you get this information, and furthermore, how did you manage to draw a line from that to "Zuck supports free speech, Mastodon doesn't like that?"
- 2y ago

rayiner 2y ago

They should complete the circle and allow instances to invade and take over other instances/subjecate other instances’ users.

glenstein 2y ago

>Mastodon ends up creating significant echo chambers where admins ban communication with other instances for having people with different opinions to them The echo chamber argument itself is a politicized argument that I think fundamentally misunderstands why communities converging on common values can be beneficial rather than simply echoing. If people are interested in astronomy, or tech security, or FOSS, or politics, weeding the garden leads to more dynamic, diverse and nuanced communication, not less, and the diagnosis of such things as "echo chambers" is a shallow misdiagnosis. Opening up your garden to weeds kills everything and leads to takeover of the one dominant kind of weed that already dominates everywhere else, which is more echoey.

int_19h 2y ago
The problem is that many Mastodon servers go far beyond what you describe. Your server can blocked because it doesn't block somebody else, for example. Or because it doesn't have such and such in its rules.