5 ms·

I was unable to settle on the Fediverse as i did not find an instance from where i could follow and interact with all the people that i know. My social circles

I was unable to settle on the Fediverse as i did not find an instance from where i could follow and interact with all the people that i know. My social circles are rather "diverse" and people like you are apparently working hard to not allow that. I guess your users were okay with you setting blocks?

kstrauser 1y ago
Yes and no. I’m working hard to keep people who act horribly out of my corner of the fediverse. I’ve never blocked someone for having different political opinions from my own, for example, but I’ve blocked plenty of people, even those who mostly share my opinions, because they were behaving like jerks. I’m doing nothing whatsoever to keep you from talking to them. Hang out with anyone you want to, and I’ll do the same. And yes, my users are specifically OK with it. Our moderation actions are public, we put them to a vote when there’s some question about the right thing to do, and I’ve blogged a lot about the details of it all. Users tend to join and stay with my instance because they agree with my moderation actions, not in spite of them.
- blueflow 1y ago
  "behaving like a jerk" by your cultural norms and standards. I understand your position and wish you and your instance a future of diverse and fruitful conversations.
  - kstrauser 1y ago
    Well, of course we’re not going to block them due to anyone else’s standards. Thanks! We’ve been online for 8 years and it’s been a lot of fun, other than dealing with moderation of bad actors. Like the one above who called me an n-word, for instance. Although that was one of the easier mod decisions we had to make, to be sure!
  - pixl97 1y ago
    Diverse conversations are actually pretty rare in reality when conflicting opinions exist. The paradox of tolerance pretty much demands you weed out the extremists or they will be all that's left.
    - blueflow 1y ago
      The trick is not being an ass towards someone you disagree with. If you quote Popper on this, you failed that and are rationalizing your behavior because you know its not good.
      - pixl97 1y ago
        The trick is the other person doing that too. Simply put a lot, if not most people don't want a rational debate where they discuss the many sides of an issue. They want to win. Take religion for example, seemingly most people that have one tend to believe not only they are right about it (if you debate it's correctness it shows your lack of faith), they are trying to convert you and if they fail you are an enemy.
        blueflow 1y ago
        Nah, this approach is not good because it kinda starts with the frontiers already drawn. You don't even need to assert your own position, just ask question like "What is your intent behind saying that" or "Why does it have to be this specific way?" to derail them into some status quo. Provoke them into explaining their "great plan" until they tumble.
      - Moomoomoo309 1y ago
        Can you think of a forum that isn't tiny that does not do this kind of moderation that isn't a cesspool? Your theory seems sound, but I don't know if I have ever seen it implemented such that the theory is correct.
        blueflow 1y ago
        I believe HN does it pretty well.
  - RankingMember 1y ago
    > "behaving like a jerk" by your cultural norms and standards. Calling someone the "n-word" doesn't really need a lot of cultural translation to be considered offensive.
    - blueflow 1y ago
      Its less a translation thing, but: I do not consider it offensive, yet i have to accommodate these sensitivities while the reverse is not considered.
      - lovich 1y ago
        There is zero real world scenarios where someone who is communicating in English in the modern day, call someone an n-word and does not mean for it to be offensive. You mean, you personally weren’t the target of an insult and you apparently are mystified as to why any other people’s feelings are taken into consideration
        blueflow 1y ago
        s/there is/i don't know/
        watwut 1y ago
        Nazi and KKK consider it proper valid word, the only one that actually expresses who and what they have in mind. Their goal is not directly to offend, just to express how they feel about some people. As far as they are concerned, the worst offense against propriety you can do is to ... call them racists. That is totally always unfair.
  - lovich 1y ago
    Do you believe that people can hold a negative opinion of someone else and choose not to interact with them, or does your world view require that people are compelled to interact with anyone who demands it of them?
    - blueflow 1y ago
      My problem is that the instance admin does the blocking decision for the user, based on their own cultural norms, not the users.
      - lovich 1y ago
        Caveat, I haven’t used mastodon or the fed inverse and might be off on the details. Isn’t that how the fediverse works? You sign up for an instance based on if you like how they admin it, and if you don’t, you join a different instance? I’m failing to see how that is a problem for users if they aren’t compelled to stay
        blueflow 1y ago
        Yes, but the different instance has a different set of blocks (both outgoing and ingoing), so the problem kinda persists even when you change instances. You can't have both A and B people in your feed when they (actually their admins) instance-block each other on sight.
        lovich 1y ago
        What exactly are you advocating for? This sounds entirely like the systems working as intended, it’s just not exactly how you personally would prefer. You’re using words like you’re pro liberty but the implications of you’re sentences is hyper authoritarian
        KittenInABox 1y ago
        Forgive me if I am not understanding: Doesn't this mean you can just go to an instance that has mutual open communication with both other instances and then have access to both feeds? This is what happens IRL when I have two friend groups that don't engage, I engage with them both as a separate person.

kstrauser 1y ago

Yes and no. I’m working hard to keep people who act horribly out of my corner of the fediverse. I’ve never blocked someone for having different political opinions from my own, for example, but I’ve blocked plenty of people, even those who mostly share my opinions, because they were behaving like jerks. I’m doing nothing whatsoever to keep you from talking to them. Hang out with anyone you want to, and I’ll do the same. And yes, my users are specifically OK with it. Our moderation actions are public, we put them to a vote when there’s some question about the right thing to do, and I’ve blogged a lot about the details of it all. Users tend to join and stay with my instance because they agree with my moderation actions, not in spite of them.

blueflow 1y ago
"behaving like a jerk" by your cultural norms and standards. I understand your position and wish you and your instance a future of diverse and fruitful conversations.
- kstrauser 1y ago
  Well, of course we’re not going to block them due to anyone else’s standards. Thanks! We’ve been online for 8 years and it’s been a lot of fun, other than dealing with moderation of bad actors. Like the one above who called me an n-word, for instance. Although that was one of the easier mod decisions we had to make, to be sure!
- pixl97 1y ago
  Diverse conversations are actually pretty rare in reality when conflicting opinions exist. The paradox of tolerance pretty much demands you weed out the extremists or they will be all that's left.
  - blueflow 1y ago
    The trick is not being an ass towards someone you disagree with. If you quote Popper on this, you failed that and are rationalizing your behavior because you know its not good.
    - pixl97 1y ago
      The trick is the other person doing that too. Simply put a lot, if not most people don't want a rational debate where they discuss the many sides of an issue. They want to win. Take religion for example, seemingly most people that have one tend to believe not only they are right about it (if you debate it's correctness it shows your lack of faith), they are trying to convert you and if they fail you are an enemy.
      - blueflow 1y ago
        Nah, this approach is not good because it kinda starts with the frontiers already drawn. You don't even need to assert your own position, just ask question like "What is your intent behind saying that" or "Why does it have to be this specific way?" to derail them into some status quo. Provoke them into explaining their "great plan" until they tumble.
    - Moomoomoo309 1y ago
      Can you think of a forum that isn't tiny that does not do this kind of moderation that isn't a cesspool? Your theory seems sound, but I don't know if I have ever seen it implemented such that the theory is correct.
      - blueflow 1y ago
        I believe HN does it pretty well.
- RankingMember 1y ago
  > "behaving like a jerk" by your cultural norms and standards. Calling someone the "n-word" doesn't really need a lot of cultural translation to be considered offensive.
  - blueflow 1y ago
    Its less a translation thing, but: I do not consider it offensive, yet i have to accommodate these sensitivities while the reverse is not considered.
    - lovich 1y ago
      There is zero real world scenarios where someone who is communicating in English in the modern day, call someone an n-word and does not mean for it to be offensive. You mean, you personally weren’t the target of an insult and you apparently are mystified as to why any other people’s feelings are taken into consideration
      - blueflow 1y ago
        s/there is/i don't know/
      - watwut 1y ago
        Nazi and KKK consider it proper valid word, the only one that actually expresses who and what they have in mind. Their goal is not directly to offend, just to express how they feel about some people. As far as they are concerned, the worst offense against propriety you can do is to ... call them racists. That is totally always unfair.
- lovich 1y ago
  Do you believe that people can hold a negative opinion of someone else and choose not to interact with them, or does your world view require that people are compelled to interact with anyone who demands it of them?
  - blueflow 1y ago
    My problem is that the instance admin does the blocking decision for the user, based on their own cultural norms, not the users.
    - lovich 1y ago
      Caveat, I haven’t used mastodon or the fed inverse and might be off on the details. Isn’t that how the fediverse works? You sign up for an instance based on if you like how they admin it, and if you don’t, you join a different instance? I’m failing to see how that is a problem for users if they aren’t compelled to stay
      - blueflow 1y ago
        Yes, but the different instance has a different set of blocks (both outgoing and ingoing), so the problem kinda persists even when you change instances. You can't have both A and B people in your feed when they (actually their admins) instance-block each other on sight.
        lovich 1y ago
        What exactly are you advocating for? This sounds entirely like the systems working as intended, it’s just not exactly how you personally would prefer. You’re using words like you’re pro liberty but the implications of you’re sentences is hyper authoritarian
        KittenInABox 1y ago
        Forgive me if I am not understanding: Doesn't this mean you can just go to an instance that has mutual open communication with both other instances and then have access to both feeds? This is what happens IRL when I have two friend groups that don't engage, I engage with them both as a separate person.