Mastodawn

Ralf Rottmann Jul 7, 2023

This behavior is - in part - why I decided to shut down my Mastodon instance, once the home of ~40k users. "ordnung" is the team behind chaos.social, a fairly large instance. Instance based censorship, in this case even proactively, is the #1 problem on Mastodon and it has sadly become a disease. They should leave these decisions up to their users. Instead, they assume the role of some super powerful governing board, hurting the fediverse in the long run.

𝗣𝗠𝗝 ⚫

they have always made clear that they're gonna protect their userbase from harrasement and the majority of their users agree to that
they don't hurt the fediverse, they're just doing for what decntralized networks were designed for
if i proactively block out bad actors from my homepage, i don't hurt the internet either i just try to let people have a nice, uninterrupted experience browsing my website

Ralf Rottmann Jul 7, 2023

@pmj I've heard that argument fine and again. However, they are making a decision for their entire user base, not based on any democratic principles. The lack of oversight is probably even worse than with the competing monopoly services. It'll hurt the fediverse in the long run. Why don't leave it up to their users to leverage per user instance blocks?

𝗣𝗠𝗝 ⚫Jul 7, 2023

their users are always free to leave and move to another server if they don't agree with their governing decisions
a fedi sever is not a political entity, they can do whatever they want with it, they are free to let their users participate in descision or not
besides; they always announce and reason their decisions transparantely

𝗣𝗠𝗝 ⚫Jul 7, 2023

ps: it's not about just another fediserver
it's about a big tech actor who's reputation of data abuse is so bad and so long, i'm happy if the whole fedi shuts it off
it's a clear exception in the whole "preemptive block" discussion
otherwise, i'm always against it, but in this case it's an act to defend the fediverse

Ralf Rottmann Jul 7, 2023

@pmj Well, we will see how this one plays out. So far, Threads already outperforms Mastodon in terms of relevance and it has only been day two. Decisions like these are a huge disservice to the fediverse. The "you can move to another server" is arrogance towards your user base.

𝗣𝗠𝗝 ⚫Jul 7, 2023

what kind of reason ist that?!
it also outperforms twitter relevance
it also outperforms any moderation when nazi groups can run free
btw: FOMO threats don't work in the fedi, most people here just want to have a good time and share some thoughts with likeminded people
threads is an active threat to that

Ralf Rottmann Jul 7, 2023

@pmj Probably. If that's the case, arbitrary censorship per instance community might be okay. It's toxic as hell but pretty well hidden.

𝗣𝗠𝗝 ⚫Jul 7, 2023

that's why, in this case, i don't see a problem with preemptive blocks on instance level

Ralf Rottmann Jul 7, 2023

@pmj You clearly don't.

𝗣𝗠𝗝 ⚫Jul 7, 2023

nope
meta or threads respectively is not just another fedi server created by enthusiasts
it comes from a multi-billion (billion!) corporation which does everything it does for money and to eliminate competition
one competitor just imploded by stupidity and incompetence but zuck is a fucking smart business predator
he doesn't embrace the fedi, he wants control, he wants more users to sell more data

tom Jul 7, 2023

@pmj @ralf And where will the line be drawn in the future? Who decides who is "good and enthusiastic" enough? Of course, each instance can decide for itself. This will make the patchwork quilt formerly known as Fediverse bigger and bigger.

𝗣𝗠𝗝 ⚫Jul 7, 2023

thats exactly the purpose of decentralized things -> DE-central, it says it right there in the word
there's never been THE fediverse, it was always A fediverse or SOME fediverse

or do you know or have contact to any of the asian servers?

THE fediverse is just a protocol, free to use in anyway you like and free to anyone to approve or disapprove on how you use it

i don't understand why people find it so hard to comprehend the concept of something that doesn't have a central authority
it will always end in fragmentation - always!

Ralf Rottmann Jul 7, 2023

@pmj @tom And that's completely okay. I just can't stand the hubris and morality of those actors. Pretending they were doing anything else than their large corporate counterparts. They both censor. None of it is any better than the other.

𝗣𝗠𝗝 ⚫Jul 7, 2023

oh and btw: censorship only applies to political actors - if a political actor prohibits things you can say, that's censorship
if you tell me to shut up, that's your personal right to do so to protect your private safespace

Ralf Rottmann Jul 7, 2023

@pmj If you prevent a large group of people to talk across boundaries, that's censorship at its best.