Ro Kr
Erik Uden 🚩The perfect Mastodon moderation principle
The fact this sparked a debate is exactly what I wanted to happen <3
catraxx 
@ErikUden Won't get a debate from me, i just agree.
@catraxx that's not good, is it? Let's debate about whether this is good
@ErikUden Is this one of those "You put two leftists into a room and get three new ideologies" kinda situation? 
@catraxx yes!! Exactly like that!!
@ErikUden Oh my, it's been a while since i've done one of those.
Ok, here goes: I agree with you on most things, but i think you could be more radical when it comes to realizing your goals.
This discrepancy is deep enough for me to betray you in case there is a war.
@catraxx Telltale Popup: “Erik Uden will remember this”
Alien software, human hardware@ErikUden I'm ambivalent about those threads.
On the one hand very stressful to read for me.
On the other very useful to feed my blocklist.
P.S. very funny: blocklist was autocorrected to bloodlust. I love that.
Maddy Guthridge 
@ErikUden tolerance is a social contract not a responsibility. Those who are intolerant waive their right to inclusion in our spaces. Those who defend the intolerant perpetuate intolerance, and are therefore intolerant by extension.
AmgineAnd in this case, a mute.
Huubje@ErikUden that one was too close to being a rotten apple, I'm telling you.
AT-AT Assault 🏳️⚧️
Luuk Plasmeyer@ErikUden if only the biggots were up to a rational debate, devoid of Facebook-sources and anecdotal ‘evidence’. But sadly, no.
konstruktive DiskussionIn case this comic is meant to be taken seriously:
This strategy might be problematic because it gives uncontrolled power to those who can simply define who is a bigot (e.g. also by lying or tinkering with facts). Defending oneself with rational arguments is not possible after the FWOOOSH has happened.
There are many objectively hard problems to solve and rational debate was a major innovation of humankind which before used to solve problems by violence and mere power projection.
Anthropy@kddk @ErikUden I was also going to bring this up, but on the other hand, bigotry often isn't reasonable, it's just baseless prejudices and discrimination, and engaging with it can also set a bad precedent; you don't argue with a fool.
I think it's important to give people a chance to change, asking them to not do something that is objectively bigoted is totally reasonable, and explaining them why is too, but if someone insists on being an arse at some point yeeting really is the better option.
This strategy sounds plausible and I clearly see that it is well intended.
However, my point is that in any controversial discussion, which has nothing todo with bigotry (say: about physics) where A and B disagree and both want to "win" the argument, there is the temptation to frame the other side as bigot and thus exclude it from the discourse.
This happened in the past and happens today (e.g. arguing for degrowth and you quickly get framed as stone-age-communist).
Yes. And I criticized that message of the comic. I merely uttered my dissent and pointed out the problems which I see. IMHO this is normal behavior in public debate.
I probably have no chance to convince you and this is OK for me.
I hope that other people read this thread and draw their own conclusions.
I think we both have good intentions but somehow do not achieve to find a common ground.
Anyway, good luck.
Texty the Bard@kddk Who gets to define bigotry? The people affected by it. And when those people have a well-documented history of systemic oppression (as opposed to a history of power), then there ya go.
E.g.: Cishet white Christian men don't get to claim bigotry because they have a massive history of being in power (and abusing that power) in most of the Western world. But the people they've historically oppressed? Yup.
VioletA frequent meme states that dystopian fiction is when the writer applies to the privileged class what marginalized groups deal with all the time. (Or words to that effect.)
When I thought I was a cis male, I never felt like anyone was trying to erase my existence. Then one day I woke up...
Chris RealFascism as a political style IS a throwback to the days when problems were solved by violence and power projection.
The things the Greeks said to each other on the battlefield before fighting were not rational debate, just provocations and insults to soften up the other side.
Treating fascist "talking points" as if they are legitimate arguments is allowing yourself to get softened up by the other side. Which is the actual aim of maga 'discourse.
Homer portrayed their words as the mere ruse it was. False words deserve no respect.
A taunt is not an argument.
Mark Lindhout@kddk @ErikUden Not to take away from your bright optimism here, but democracy is in decline, press freedom is under attack, wars are raging all over the globe... And here you are implying that violence and power projection are a thing of the past.
That seems, objectively, to be an analysis up for review. The data is really, really showing something else here.
Dudley of Yesterzine 
StarkRG
Abyssal Rook@kddk Man of all the replies here so far, no one's pointed out that the idea that a moderation team for a self-owned subsection of a social media protocol or a privately owned website being given "uncontrolled power" is single funniest concept ever.
The control is that other people exist on the site, and depending on what the site defines as bigotry, people can decide whether or not to continue using it. They already HAVE uncontrolled power to kick whoever for whatever reason they want.
fear is not a Weltanschauung@kddk
1/ While I commend you for attempting to argue from your principles respectfully, your aim and the aim of your interlocutors in the communities their moderations are intended to build are divergent. At the risk of 'teaching you how to suck eggs', Mastodon as a platform is very versatile. As suited as it is to facilitating massive interconnected nodal networks, it is equally well suited for the use of small groups centred around shared values or special interests.
1/ While I commend you for attempting to argue from your principles respectfully, your aim and the aim of your interlocutors in the communities their moderations are intended to build are divergent. At the risk of 'teaching you how to suck eggs', Mastodon as a platform is very versatile. As suited as it is to facilitating massive interconnected nodal networks, it is equally well suited for the use of small groups centred around shared values or special interests.
2/ For the latter, near-total autonomy in curating an isolated online space is not a mechanism open to abuse by bad actors, it is the principle on which the community is founded. Most who desire to intentionally create such spaces do so to gain temporary respite from he plethora of spaces where people of oppositional mindsets can rationally debate each other to their hearts' contents.
@kddk
@kddk
3/ Your worldview may lend you to feel that Mastodon is more "rightly" a platform for the former community, but that is a personal values-based opinion. Their worldview, that they need no external oversight to be able to create their flavour of community is also thus. The platform itself is entirely agnostic to the communities able to be built with it. You seem already to know there's limited point in attempting to dialogue someone out of their worldview, and are content to repurpose...
@kddk
@kddk
4/ ...your comments, post-block-and-mute, to provide some insight and value to the passer-by, and I suppose there is some value in that, but my own personal values-based opinion is that it is not so much to make beginning the engagement in the first place worth the effort.
@kddk
@kddk
@wouldinotcallmyselfahumanbeing
Thank you for your differentiated perspective.
> not so much to make beginning the engagement in the first place worth the effort.
The reason why I reacted on the comic posted by @ErikUden
The original post seems to propose silencing criticism as quote "The perfect Mastodon moderation principle". And while I absolutely can live with communities following this strategy I strongly object that *Mastodon as a whole* should adapt this moderation principle.
1/
@wouldinotcallmyselfahumanbeing @ErikUden
The reason: I see Mastodon (better: the Fediverse) as one of the few tools which can save democracy, solidarity and freedom from being drowned in the corporate media swamp represented by Xitter, TikTok etc.
But for this it must be possible to debate on *controversial topics* without being FWOOOSHed at the first occasion, because people tend to disagree on many things.
2/
@wouldinotcallmyselfahumanbeing @ErikUden
My personal theory is:
Communities need to establish rules which kind of statements they tolerate and which not.
If these rules are not strict enough this is obviously problematic.
However, if these rules are too strict than this IMHO also problematic because the community will unlearn how to resolve conflicts and in the long run fragment itself over minor issues and disappear.
My whole point is to express this warning about the original post.
1/ While i certainly understand your motivation, this was not a formal proposal to adopt a mastodon-wide stance on moderation, nor even an *in*formal one. it was a low-effort, deliberately superficial and irreverent polemic. I suppose to me it comes down to sphere of influence. Were your goal to effect change, even at a hyperlocal level, you would be better to involve yourself in one of the efforts to define shared principles undepinning moderation such as UFoI.
@kddk
@kddk
2/ as to your personal theory, your commitment to the longevity of communities as a general principle is broadly admirable, but again citing sphere of influence, it seems an odd choice to insert yourself into a community as a stranger, to educate them on how they should be community-building. small, hermetic communities are dynamic. They are always expanding, dividing and collapsing as their membership grows as individuals.
@kddk
@kddk
3/ Those who tire of the small pond, or who disagree with moderation direction, branch iff and start their own communities which have their own cycles. It is again, very much part ofthe model.
It is a more organic kin to the formalistic 'rational debate' model of problem-solving. You are invested in your model, as you should be, and while alternatives might be less aligned to your own cognitive bent, it is a failure of judgement to assume the model you prefer is suitable for, and...
@kddk
It is a more organic kin to the formalistic 'rational debate' model of problem-solving. You are invested in your model, as you should be, and while alternatives might be less aligned to your own cognitive bent, it is a failure of judgement to assume the model you prefer is suitable for, and...
@kddk
4/ and should be adopted by, everyone.
Alternatively, if your goal is mere intellectual diversion (which is, i should disclose here is my main goal in our discourse), you are welcome to continue indulging in low-speed collisions between incompatible worldviews.
@kddk
Alternatively, if your goal is mere intellectual diversion (which is, i should disclose here is my main goal in our discourse), you are welcome to continue indulging in low-speed collisions between incompatible worldviews.
@kddk
Miles @wouldinotcallmyselfahumanbeing @kddk this is what I've been thinking when I hear people say "the problem with Mastodon is that instance admins have too much power" (most recently as part of "why #nostr is better" arguments, e.g. https://nostr.com/comparisons/mastodon). Like yes being in a curated online space means you're subject to those curation policies. But if you agree with those policies, it generally results in an experience that's much better than what you get on a "neutral" platform.
E.g. the instance I joined has some strong views, but I agree with those views so it feels like a cozy home base where I can express my thoughts and end up engaged in friendly discussions about those topics as opposed to debates that don't go anywhere. Such as this one, perhaps? 😉
I think the value of most Internet debates that don't lead to a clear change in perspective is hard to quantify. But I suppose we're all getting something from this or we wouldn't be talking to each other (probably? 🙂)
soc
Janis@ErikUden We need to get better at picking our battles versus our apples. If all those apples get yeeted, that particular tree variety will eventually turn into an orchard.
Love it or hate it, both democracy and capitalism are built on a convincing sales pitch, not a forceful rot pitch.
Marcus
mozz@ErikUden Speaking as the rational debate guy I think this comic is wonderful
Shane Celis@ErikUden Love it!
Ian MalcolmThis is the way. We already know exactly what happens when you don't yeet 'em - it used to be called Twitter.
Rodan@ErikUden experienced it first hand (the centrist discrimination that is)(I'll never understand the "I'd rather have 0% of your support than 75%". All or nothing baby 🤷🏻🤦)
pinkdrunkenelephants@ErikUden Imagine anyone dumb enough to think that enforcing rules is equivalent to breaking them somehow 🤦
MrCartaaa@ErikUden this is great.
Andi89S4051@ErikUden
Perfect 👌
Perfect 👌
SylvainImagine seeing this and seriously commenting "who gets to define bigotry?"
And they say irony is dead...
All the "apples" in the comments should've just said "I see myself in this picture and I don't like it."
Beeks@ErikUden perfect principle for life in general tbh.
@ErikUden I've always wondered if there are really central apologists like this or if they're just the bigots who know they're bigoted and shouldn't be but haven't quite gotten to actually fixing themselves yet.
And the bigots trying some weird dog whistle-y psyop BS, obviously.
temporarily a fish (angy)There's plenty of people like this, yes.
SpeakerToManagers@ErikUden
Yeet for the win!
Yeet for the win!
Бджілка робе кусь 🇺🇦🇮🇱🏳️🌈@ErikUden And of course this leads to bigots and their apologists concentrate on instances with even more radical bigots where they "rationally debate" each other. A melting pot for all sorts of dangerous cults. Shame that you can't ban them in real life and in the voting booth.