So, one thing I said at #FediMTL yesterday is that Fediverse software should ship with the IFTAS DNI list as the default, minimum blocklist.
-
I'm asking what problems that you listed above, does my more limited approach fail to deal with? afaict we are only arguing over the hate speech. that wasn't in what you brought up.
and I can't bring any pressure. I can only argue in a public forum for a different approach. just as Evan is arguing for that list being taken as a default block list, I'm agreeing but saying nobody should be on there for that which is not pushed on others.
yes block bad taggers but not bad posters.
-
that's nice to say but it's not true. there is an idea that people have about the fedi just like they had one about the internet in the 90s (perhaps why I brought it up). norms get established and our growth depends on the brand that creates.
our current brand is very HOA and progressive. you know that. it depresses adoption while some love it. no nice conservative thinks they'd be welcome setting up a server. views on gender or ICE might be called hate and get them defederated.
-
that's nice to say but it's not true. there is an idea that people have about the fedi just like they had one about the internet in the 90s (perhaps why I brought it up). norms get established and our growth depends on the brand that creates.
our current brand is very HOA and progressive. you know that. it depresses adoption while some love it. no nice conservative thinks they'd be welcome setting up a server. views on gender or ICE might be called hate and get them defederated.
@wjmaggos @evan No, I don't see that. I see that in tightly constrained timelines of mutual follows, but I don't see it on fedi writ large.
We are all prisoners of our own chronological bubbles.
Run a few accounts on a few different servers on a few different platforms with a few different denylists, or none.
-
-
@wjmaggos @evan No, I don't see that. I see that in tightly constrained timelines of mutual follows, but I don't see it on fedi writ large.
We are all prisoners of our own chronological bubbles.
Run a few accounts on a few different servers on a few different platforms with a few different denylists, or none.
-
@GavinChait @benpate @evan Thanks to our community, these labels and their definitions are also available in other languages. Special thanks to DTSP for re-releasing these labels as Creative Commons, allowing us to solicit translation volunteers.
Français
Português Brasileiro
Scots Gaelic (labels only)
简体字 (Simplified Chinese) -
I disagree. The only servers that should be blocked are those that fail to address their users who engage in unwanted tagging. That's harassment/abuse. It drives away users. I could support a list of servers somehow so verified.
But to go further than this is a kind of censorship of content allowed elsewhere on the web. Stuff we basically never stumble on while browsing. Without algos here, it will never be forced on us.
I can easily see posts critical of Israel called antisemitic.
@wjmaggos @evan Something that has become especially clear as I've started up my own instance, is that inter-instance moderation is already built in to the architecture of the Fediverse. The federated timeline is dependent on the follows of the accounts on your instance.
Every post that ends up on the federated timeline is there because someone interacted with a post from someone that someone on your instance follows. If the instance of the account you follow already has a reasonably active moderation the most obnoxious instances would already be blocked. The moderation from your instance affects the timeline on every instance with an account that follows your instance.
I could see a pretty strong argument for coordinating blocklists among large instances, as their federated timelines would already be exposed to questionable actors. And those larger instances would have more popular figures who could be targets of harassment campaigns. But going so far as to package the blocklists *on a software level* so that every small instance is following the same cultural standards by default, as decided by an insular group of activists who by definition have the privilege of free time make these things is a type of structural risk to be concerned about -
@wjmaggos @evan Something that has become especially clear as I've started up my own instance, is that inter-instance moderation is already built in to the architecture of the Fediverse. The federated timeline is dependent on the follows of the accounts on your instance.
Every post that ends up on the federated timeline is there because someone interacted with a post from someone that someone on your instance follows. If the instance of the account you follow already has a reasonably active moderation the most obnoxious instances would already be blocked. The moderation from your instance affects the timeline on every instance with an account that follows your instance.
I could see a pretty strong argument for coordinating blocklists among large instances, as their federated timelines would already be exposed to questionable actors. And those larger instances would have more popular figures who could be targets of harassment campaigns. But going so far as to package the blocklists *on a software level* so that every small instance is following the same cultural standards by default, as decided by an insular group of activists who by definition have the privilege of free time make these things is a type of structural risk to be concerned aboutas I kinda said but have said elsewhere, social media is like the web plus email. and my view is we should maximize following (browsing) users on any server while limiting the ability of users to unwanted tag (spam) our users.
so afaik email servers have a system of spammer blocklists they can subscribe to, managed by orgs. fedi servers should have that too for unwanted taggers.
the question imo is whether that should include non tagging hate speech.
-
R relay@relay.an.exchange shared this topic
