Terence C. 🔰
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.
Jordan Kay@Gargron That’s right
Eric Davis ✅ ✔️ ☑️@Gargron Thank you for all the work you've done and continue to do here!
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.
Hairyloon@escarpment @Gargron
A lot of people will not realise that different servers have different rules, nor understand how content is shared between each.
What happens if my server has a very lax attitude to CW and yours is very strict?
Does your server block content from ours?
A lot of people will not realise that different servers have different rules, nor understand how content is shared between each.
What happens if my server has a very lax attitude to CW and yours is very strict?
Does your server block content from ours?
@Hairyloon @Gargron "In all cases ... in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction." I dunno... I find it somewhat interesting that this is exactly the same issue with two states that have different laws.
The constitution forbids states from having certain laws. Other laws are enforced only within the state (posting at people on your server). Beyond state lines, it gets into federal jurisdiction.
@Hairyloon @Gargron Probably when communicating with people from outside your server, only the laws which apply to both servers apply...? Or only the more generic "federal" laws adopted by the fediverse Congress which meets once a year and has elected representatives from each server.
@Hairyloon @Gargron I guess article IV of the US Constitution is where they attempt to address this issue. The full faith and credit clause.
Dan moved, see pinned toot@ifixcoinops @Hairyloon @Gargron I don't think the nationality of the server prevents applying the principles of federalism present in the US constitution to the fediverse. Whatever nation of origin the server lives in shouldn't preclude establishing a system of governance that draws inspiration from existing federal systems.
@ifixcoinops @Hairyloon @Gargron Doesn't have to be. That's another good topic for discussion when drafting a constitution. The USA is most familiar to me and happens to consist of several independent but united states, each with their own laws, but which also answer to a federal jurisdiction. I'm sure there's some as-yet better structure. We all know the USA is far from a perfect union!
indri@indri @ifixcoinops @Hairyloon @Gargron Probably! My high level hypothesis is that some online disputes originate from an ad-hoc process of "rule making" where people decide on unwritten rules and then punish people for violating them, without allowing space for the full making process (what about this case? What about this potential dispute? What about this contradiction or this exception? Who decides? How do we choose who decides?)
@escarpment @indri @ifixcoinops @Gargron
Typically in most internet discussion forums the admin decide and the rule is that the admins word is law.
This works only if the admin are good and the population is small enough to be administered by a handful.
What there needs to be is an established set of rules, transparency and an appeal process.
If you've got those, then it doesn't matter who decides what the rules are as long as they're consistent.
Typically in most internet discussion forums the admin decide and the rule is that the admins word is law.
This works only if the admin are good and the population is small enough to be administered by a handful.
What there needs to be is an established set of rules, transparency and an appeal process.
If you've got those, then it doesn't matter who decides what the rules are as long as they're consistent.
@Hairyloon @indri @ifixcoinops @Gargron Yeah, this risks being the "good king" problem. As long as the admin is "good" and conscientious, as many of them are, this works really well. But when establishing systems, you have to worry about every admin and their successor from here to eternity. That's why kings and dictators are dangerous.
@escarpment @indri @ifixcoinops @Gargron
This is why the rules need to be established and written down rather than arbitrarily decided on the whim of the admin.
If they are written down, then there can be no argument as to what they are.
There can be arguments that they are wrong, or about what they actually mean.
Unless of course such arguments are banned, which was the case in one forum I was on some years back...
https://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/topic/449026-on-the-rise-of-fascism/?do=findComment&comment=7982080
@ifixcoinops @escarpment @indri @Gargron
Ah sorry.
Even Twitter has the facility to pull yourself out of a conversation. I'd understood Mastodon to be far superior in that regard.
Ah sorry.
Even Twitter has the facility to pull yourself out of a conversation. I'd understood Mastodon to be far superior in that regard.
@ifixcoinops @escarpment @Gargron
I read it as a suggestion of how it could work, or as an example to build on.
Just because it's American doesn't mean it has to be a bad thing... ;)
I read it as a suggestion of how it could work, or as an example to build on.
Just because it's American doesn't mean it has to be a bad thing... ;)
Simon W. Gill@escarpment I set up a server for just me. Do I get to come to this congress?
@my That's a good question to debate when constructing the founding documents. In the USA, we have a process by which other states decide when a state is a state.
Section 3 New States and Federal Property of United States
Clause 1 New States
New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union
@escarpment @Gargron
Presumably it is a little easier to change server than to change state?
Or is it?
How does one go about migrating to another server if the one we are on is incompatible with ourselves?
Presumably it is a little easier to change server than to change state?
Or is it?
How does one go about migrating to another server if the one we are on is incompatible with ourselves?
@Hairyloon @Gargron Technically migrating servers is pretty seamless. Much easier than moving from California to Ohio! And yeah, that could be the question facing both participants on a mastodon server and citizens of a state in the US. Is it worth upping and leaving because the laws and governance of this state/server are so antithetical to my own views?
@escarpment @Gargron
In the case of moving servers, it ought to be straightforward enough that the answer is yes: we ought to be able to find a server that suits us almost perfectly.
In the case of moving servers, it ought to be straightforward enough that the answer is yes: we ought to be able to find a server that suits us almost perfectly.
Gamarús@Gargron Thank you. People often think that their vision of the Fediverse IS the Fediverse.
And people who have been here a long time have a nasty habit of telling new people how to behave.
pintoo@gamarus
Yeah, you're joining existing communities, that have a lot of history.
Try to think what you would do if you arrive in a big, existing group in real life ? And these people have built rules that fit their group, and makes everyone in the group feel at ease.
In that scenario, do you really see yourself telling everyone to stop, and to revert to behavior that they *know* doesn't fit them ?
@Gargron
SchroederEugene has been more than here. He helped build the place. Listen to him and stop the CW policing.
EdenDestroyer@sandearl @Gargron we can listen to him while not agreeing to his opinions. As much as we can appreciate his work, we still are a community as a whole filled with more people than just eugene. His authority isnt rock-hard, nor is the community’s. The opinions expressed in a dialogue and their legitimacy matters more than anything.
You may have misunderstood. He said there's no consensus on CW use. You've been here about four days. I've been here about ten. You and I can have our separate opinions about CW use, but Eugen knows a hell of a lot more about the culture here than either of us. So I'm telling people don't tell others how they should use CWs based on the culture here. He just told us. I'm respecting expertise.
Moffin'tosh
Tim Binsley@sandearl @edendestroyer @Gargron I think it’s important, when coming over from Twitter, that we don’t bring our bad behaviours with us. One of the reasons this is so chilled is down to the use of #ContentWrappers. They’re not exclusively for offensive material, more of a thoughtful guide for people who maybe don’t want politics splashed all over their home. We should be less bull in a china shop, and tread more softly.
@sandearl
By your logic, you should rather listen to the trans people that helped build the Fediverse and they'll tell you CWs help them everyday.
Think of the "curb-cut effect" : when you adopt rules that help and are inclusive to minorities, you often end up making life easier for the majority.
CWs are that. They allow your mind to prepare to see a specific topic, and it gives you the *choice* to engage or not.
@Gargron - 1/2
Rebecca Scottie
Adam Dymitruk 
@Gargron amazing times! So glad this is taking off!
A. Jay Adler@Gargron As it is in the world at large.
CautionWIP 🇨🇦🏳️🌈@Gargron the password reset function seems to be broken for me. I’m not getting an email from the system.
Theresa@CautionWIP @Gargron I think that’s likely to do with overload from new joiners?
@touchingfreedom @Gargron Seems likely, especially as it’s affecting more than just me.
Lorne Barry@CautionWIP @Gargron same has happened to me. I have just chalked it up to higher intake glitch
@CautionWIP @Gargron when I try I get "invalid email or password" though I have double and tripled checked both