HollieMar 20, 2024
Found my way into a great #FediForum discussion on implementing the ability to create private groups, and it startled me how emphatically a few folks were puzzled why this would be desired. One person repeatedly characterized private groups as "hiding from the public square". It feels like issues of harassment (sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia, etc.) are talked about with such urgency (at least in my circles?) - I can't be the only hearing that? The public square isn't safe for everyone.
Show threadKat Valentine AllwellMar 20, 2024

@hollie Oh my god, this is such a huge disconnect that is so incredibly frustrating with how people design social software, and the material needs of the people who use it.

Being constantly exposed to the world is a *luxury* and building around design assumptions that everyone *can* and *should* be constantly connected to everyone everywhere is just... it's such a fucking techbro mindset.

Privacy is integral to living a life, and fedi seems to be built specifically to impede private spaces.

Show threadHollieMar 20, 2024

@katanova Yeah I think as I'm learning more about this there is really a disconnect between the skillset and headspace of designing the social software, and that of using it. And I think I have naively assumed for a long time that it'd be obvious, but it isn't at all.

The being watched thing is a big deal - that was also mentioned by several folks, that the fediverse can seem challenging when you're new and can't tell where your posts are actually going. I feel that should be a discussion too.

Show threadJonMar 20, 2024
Yes, exactly. Most people who lead software teams think that they have good instincts about how others will want to use it but actually project how they think people should use it. Local-only posts in Mastodon are a great example. They make it very easy to avoid being watched, and it's easy to explain where they go -- just to others on your instance. Trans people running the Glitch fork implemented them in 2017 and other forks have them as well, but Eugen doesn't like them so has refused to support them in the official Mastodon release.

The "if you're not exposing yourself to everybody you're hiding" attitude also comes up in discussions of opt-in federation (as opposed to today's norms, where federation requests from nazis and terfs are accepted until you opt out). In one of the github comments in the discussion of whether Bridgy Fed's connection to Bluesky, a well-known fediverse influencer misdescribed somebody's suggestion that it should be opt-in as a "premise that the fediverse is a place to hide from others." And not-so-coincidentally, these discussions are often heavily gendered, so in practice it's often cis guys saying "if you're not exposing yourself to the cis male gaze you're hiding." Although of course they don't see it that way.

@hollie @katanova
Show threadKat Valentine AllwellMar 20, 2024

@jdp23 That premise that you're describing, of "you shouldn't need to hide" is an expression of desire concealed within an assertion of reality.

The expression of desire, underneath the obfuscation, is this: "I don't want you to be able to hide what you're doing from me. I want to be technically capable of seeing everything that you do"

There's a sort of authoritarian assumption on the part of the designer of what constitutes "reasonable privacy"
@hollie

Show threadKat Valentine AllwellMar 20, 2024

@jdp23 And in line with this, the software designers seem to have an assumption of entitlement to access to the discourse of a community.

That is to say, it's assumed that anyone doing anything as part of a community "behind closed doors" as it were, can only be doing so for nefarious reasons, and so it is the responsibility of the software designers to prevent misuse in such a way.

This is an integral aspect of techbro culture
@hollie

[cont]

Show threadKat Valentine Allwell

@jdp23 This assumption of Techbro Culture is that individuals cannot be trusted to behave Properly, and so it is the responsibility of the Designers of the tools and spaces to ensure that they are not used Improperly.

It's patronizing to individuals, and disempowers people from being able to make their own meaningful decisions.

Techbros try to take on the role of parent when they don't actually know how to parent, or even recognize that's what they're doing.

@hollie

Mar 20, 2024 at 10:50pmWeb
Show threadBernie Luckily Does ItMar 21, 2024
@katanova @jdp23 @hollie This. It's so annoying when I can't follow someone who's interesting because my admin has decided that the admin of their server is evil or something.
Show threadKat Valentine AllwellMar 21, 2024

@BernieDoesIt I'd say that's a normal community moderation function.

The larger issue is that the shape of mastodon administration makes top-down moderation the default, and it takes a considerable amount of effort to make community moderation a community-led process.

@jdp23 @hollie

Show threadBernie Luckily Does ItMar 21, 2024
@katanova @jdp23 @hollie I don't mind when they're filtered out by default, but when I can't follow someone I know from outside the fedi because they picked the wrong server it seems awfully paternalistic. It's not like I'm following Nazis.
Show threadKat Valentine AllwellMar 21, 2024

@BernieDoesIt One of the primary strengths of the federated model, is that it's decentralized.

If being in contact with them is such a high priority, why not coordinate with them? If you want to be in control of who you're able to connect to, why not host your own instance?

Being a member of an instance hosted by someone else has inherent tradeoffs. You give control over to the instance operator, and in return, you get to enjoy the services they provide.

How much do you pay stux?

Show threadBernie Luckily Does ItMar 21, 2024
@katanova I actually have decided on setting up a personal server. It just hasn't been something I've made a priority.