This is a big problem for Mastodon.

Canadian journalist Erica Ifill just had her mastodon.online account suspended without explanation. She's been sharing stuff critical of Mastodon re: intersectional issues.

I get the decentralized structure and idea that each server has its own rules. But this Reddit-style moderation, where moderators with god-complexes make mysterious and arbitrary decisions, is going to cause people migrating to Mastodon to flee in droves.

https://www.presscheck.org/journalists/erica-ifill

PressCheck.org

I also don't think it is a serious solution to tell people, especially those from vulnerable communities, to just go find a server that respects them / allows them to criticize racism, etc.

People are joining Mastodon in good faith, but if they encounter these problems once, twice or more, it starts to send them the message they're not welcome here. It becomes a real brand problem and platform integrity issue.

@llebrun There needs to be more visibility - so that ppl can make an easier choice in selecting servers. Like a yelp rating for servers in terms of moderation and stability etc.
@llebrun Maybe in interim users who have felt themselves discriminated against can post using hashtag # AdminAlert and share screenshots. Granted this is extra labor for victims, but given the decentralized nature of open-source Mastodon the more data ppl have to make a decision on how best to self-sort it will be good. Will also shine a light so rogue admins can clean up their act when they are in the wrong or risk their server being defederated by servers that don't abide by their actions.
@llebrun Can also give admins the opportunity to share their own evidence to make their own cases for suspension in case of bad faith reports.
@llebrun Best would be for servers to have clear rules defined and TOS and suspend users for clear violations. I suspect for some they may benefit from DEI education and reflection.
@caffeneko @llebrun my understanding is the point of the fediverse is that there may be communities that reject DEI. Other communities will need to decide if they include DEI rejecting servers from their view or accept that as "diversity." If people want more or less sanitized content, they need to find servers with governance that matches their expectations.
@caffeneko @llebrun - I agree on TOS. There should be a clear UI for why individuals, content, or servers are removed from each server so transparency and appeals processes can be built into the platform. Good servers (IMO) will foster communities with clear TOS, governance bylaws, and humane processes that protect us from descending into hateful screaming matches like Birdsite.