@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.

@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?

@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.

@escarpment @Hairyloon @Gargron OK but you're on a German server

@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.

@escarpment @Hairyloon @Gargron OK but why try to make Fedi like America specifically

@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!

@escarpment @Hairyloon @Gargron
Maybe the European Union is a better analogy.

@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.

@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.