@craignewmark @JMMaok @pensato @futurebird @jeffjarvis @jayrosen_nyu

New, so learning, & have a question to clarify . I understand you are hoping to formalize an overall minimal standard for all instances & that would mean enforcement at some point . Which I assume would be universally having the same moderating body & list, or something similiar ? Also, want to note whatever happens the fact moderation with a fair ,open face is what happens here is an achievement & makes a difference .Ty

@karger

To talk about Mastodon in particular the moderation system is OK. I would like to see a ticket system where user reports would create a ticket that could be shared across servers (including notes and links to posts) I'd like to see an *option* to inform users who make reports about what happened.

I'd also like a true shadow-ban option-- limiting is close, but a way to mute a user over a whole server. (been dealing with people who keep making new accounts)

@futurebird yeah there are lots of opportunities for improvement in the moderation system.

@karger moderation's more than just labeling content. It's also about de-escalating situations before they turn into trashfires, protecting people and communities from bad actors, and reinforcing positive norms. People on an instance that prohibits hate speech shouldn't be able to choose "freeze peach" absolutists as their moderators. @jeffjarvis I assume @Zittrain's pitch to FB addressed this?

@karger @futurebird @jeffjarvis @Zittrain Instances are currently the primary mechanism for community in the fediverse so I'm not sure about the distinction you're making.

And Google actually does make decisions about what email to deliver and what to moderate by labeling it as social or spam.

@jdp23 @futurebird @jeffjarvis @Zittrain moderation currently conflates labeling and delivery. I'm all in favor of gmail continuing to label mail as spam or social---because they let *me* decide what to do about those labels, rather than invisibly deleting it.

for contrast, the *do* drop mail with forged sender info immediately, and I think that's the right choice because it violates the *infrastructure* contract (identifiable senders) rather than a particular community norm.

@jdp23 I guess the turnabout question is, if a nazi group sets up their own mail server, should other mail servers refuse to exchange email with it?

Given the current state of affairs with mastodon, since there is too little control at the individual level, defederation is the best of bad choices.

but i think we'd be far better off with a social network infrastructure modeled on the email one---a reliable delivery layer *on top of which* communities can internally manage norms

@karger Defederation *is* a community decision: "We o this instance don't want anything to do with Nazi servers". That sounds like a good choice to me (not just the best of bad choices) but I guess we see it differently.

As for email servers, they already refuse to exchange email with servers and IP addresses known to be spammers, or sites with DKIM etc set up wrong. I agree that they're more tolerant of Nazis than spam but that's just a question of which values they enforce prioritize.

@jdp23 defederation isn't a community decision. it's entirely in the hands of the server operator.

r.e. email servers, I don't think it's a question of value so much as layers. sources that violate the email delivery contract by forging headers or sending too much volume get blocked, but there is rarely blocking based on *content*.