Eugen RochkoHaving been here since 2016, I can tell you there is definitely no such thing as a consensus on usage of content warnings on the fediverse. It's a decentralized network that doesn't belong to any one party, so by definition there is no single culture on it. Different corners have different expectations and customs.
Escarpment@Gargron I think it's a great discussion (though I seem to get blocked by someone every time I wade into it). I'm still very interested to see a section on that in an open source "constitution" of sorts for the fediverse. Servers could adopt the constitution in whole or in part.
@Gargron Then when people enter a dispute about content warning or no content warning, they can check their respective server rules and use that to settle it. E.g. if the rule were "content warnings are encouraged but not required. It is not recommended to chastise someone for their choice of content warning or not. It is encouraged to inform your followers about content warnings and when to use them..." Not necessarily suggesting that rule, just a rule in that vein.
Ben Aveling@BenAveling @Gargron This is a similar question to the one facing the framers of the US constitution. Article IV has a bit of their answer (the full faith and credit clause). The federal govt of the US often has jurisdiction when disputes cross state lines- should there be a "federal govt" for the fediverse? Or is the answer "be careful out beyond the safety of your server: other servers have slightly different rules that we can't protect you from."
@BenAveling @Gargron The Bill of Rights and Article IV establish a baseline for what laws the states may pass. "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government,"- no US State can become a monarchy or a dictatorship.
Mark Britten@escarpment
I've always been interested in where SCOTUS would draw the line on the definition of "republican form of government". Is a governor elected for life republican? For example.
I've always been interested in where SCOTUS would draw the line on the definition of "republican form of government". Is a governor elected for life republican? For example.
@lemonflavoured I can't say I've always wondered, but that is an interesting question! https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/articles/article-iv/clauses/42
"In cases such as Pacific States Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Oregon (1912), the Supreme Court has refused to invalidate various forms of direct democracy permitted by state law, such as popular initiative and referendum, on the ground that they violate the Guarantee Clause"
Interpretation: The Guarantee Clause | Constitution Center
SECTION. 1. Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
@escarpment @Gargron There is no federal government here, so that recourse doesn't have an analogue. This is more like international commerce, other servers have different rules - implying author needs to comply with author's server rules; reader can ask, but not insist.
@BenAveling @Gargron That's an option. There could be a federal government, though. Servers could send representatives to a conference on some cadence to set and update rules that apply to those servers.
@BenAveling @Gargron But yes, perhaps even in the absence of federal govt, you simply have to adhere to the other server's rules when interacting with people on that server... gets tricky for when you're just posting out into the void. Seems unfair for the rules of every single one of your followers' servers to apply to all of your posts.
I don't have answers- I just think this is the correct framing and right way to approach these issues.
@escarpment @Gargron
A lot of tradeoffs needed for that to happen. Probably too many for it to happen now, absent some crisis.
A lot of tradeoffs needed for that to happen. Probably too many for it to happen now, absent some crisis.
🪨@escarpment
And then there can be other countries, even if there was a "federal government" for the Fediverse, other servers could not abide to it, so it doesn't really solve the question. No need to add back centralization, having tools to work with is more important.
@BenAveling @Gargron
And then there can be other countries, even if there was a "federal government" for the Fediverse, other servers could not abide to it, so it doesn't really solve the question. No need to add back centralization, having tools to work with is more important.
@BenAveling @Gargron
@Varpie @BenAveling @Gargron Perhaps. I agree- there would be servers that do not accept the constitution. There could be servers that accept a different set of rules that is unpalatable to the majority of instances which adopt the constitution and therefore they defederate from those instances.
I guess the question is: could some centralization actually be good? (A conference; a virtual conference; a meet up for admins; a global support team that helps admins fight fires).
@escarpment
For issues about "how should content warnings be used"? No, I don't think so. If a specific server admin decides that it is an important rule and does not federate with instances that don't agree, then so be it, but it shouldn't be a global issue.
@BenAveling @Gargron
For issues about "how should content warnings be used"? No, I don't think so. If a specific server admin decides that it is an important rule and does not federate with instances that don't agree, then so be it, but it shouldn't be a global issue.
@BenAveling @Gargron
@Varpie @BenAveling @Gargron I guess what I'm envisioning is that there exist many flavors of the "Mastodon Constitution", similar to software licenses like MIT or GPL. And each server chooses a well known one, or rolls their own. But potentially they all share certain things in common.