Is #mastodon becoming an echo chamber? This post from @carnage4life has me questioning our community. The Mastodon team is finally getting some traction, the product improvements are increasing, The #UX is improving, yet people posting on multiple platforms are making comments like this. It's confusing.

I *know* people here don't want this to be a classic social media-clone but we'd *like* journalists to be here right? They aren't coming with examples like this!

As this conversation is spiraling a bit I want to make a few things clear:
1. I'd like Mastodon to be MORE inclusive and bring in more voices
2. Some people don't seem to want that
3. This is core problem to solve: How do we let more in, but not "pollute" your feed?
4. The solution is NOT "gatekeeping", revelling in the fact that AI journalists aren't welcome
5. This is the same reason we lost "Black Twitter" when it came over in 2022

Yes, a lot of you don't want AI posts in your feed (or pick any other topic) but the solution isn't to keep "AI People" from joining Mastodon, any more than it is keeping marginalized communities off of Mastodon.

@scottjenson I’m not interested in following any “AI people”. That doesn’t make it an echo chamber. We don’t need equal amounts of people who love puppies and want to kill puppies, not everything needs to be equally represented.

@Gargron That is a personal choice and one which I totally respect. But I do think Mastodon should be big enough, and open enough, to allow an "AI community" to form, even thrive.

Too many people in my replies don't seem to agree with that.

@scottjenson @Gargron I'd have to ask, what value would an an AI Booster community bring to the FediVerse?

@cratermoon @scottjenson @Gargron This is a very rich ethics question hidden in a specific example.

Would you permit or allow any community with which you disagree to participate on a platform, even if you’re not forced to participate?

A shortlist of thought experiments, to broaden the perspective, some of which are already here, some not…
- The oil & gas community
- Forestry workers (logging)
- The cryptocurrency community
- Workers at a chick rendering plant
- The finance industry
- Adult content creators
- Religious communities

Is there a litmus test for topics that you can or can’t discuss on the fediverse? Specific servers sure, but the whole fediverse?

Does that align with the values put forth by mastodon or the fediverse in general?

I don’t have the answers.

@trisweb @cratermoon @scottjenson @Gargron by definition, no. Literally anyone can spin up a server and talk about anything/try to get more folk to listen…

But other folk have to want to listen to whatever they are saying. Servers and individuals can just decide not to. No one is guaranteed an audience, just the ability to speak.

@octothorpe @trisweb @cratermoon @scottjenson @Gargron This. The fake question framed as if not pandering to their "AI" fawning bullshit is "not allowing them to be on fedi" is bad-faith sealioning. If they don't come here because they know folks here don't want to listen to their shit, that's not our problem.
@dalias @octothorpe @trisweb @cratermoon @scottjenson @Gargron Yeah, I don't know what Fedi everyone else has been hanging out on, but there seem to be plenty of "AI" believers on here. I used to follow quite a number of them prior to their going off the LLM deep end. I have to maintain an extensive filter list to avoid having that stuff constantly surface in my feed.
This whole thing is just another variant of the tired old "free speech means you have to listen to my crap" argument.

@pmdj @dalias

That is the exact opposite of what I said. I'm saying the fediverse gives you the tools to follow/block/filter/ to your hearts content to create the space you want.

What is corrosive is people ACTIVELY going after people they don't agree with. Just look at the replies to my post to get small sample.

My point was, I thought, very simple, and very reasonable: we should be more welcoming of more opinions. If you don't like them, then don't follow them. That should be the fedi-way. To be clear, I'm NOT endorsing AI, it just used it as an example.

Instead I'm living the very point I was trying to make. I've been told to leave, called a racist, and had ad hominem attacks leveled at me.

Now to be fair, my original post was poorly worded. I've owned that
https://social.coop/@scottjenson/116358195717244835

@scottjenson @dalias So, the harassment via randos (or bots) in mentions/replies has been a problem for at least as long as I‘ve been on the Fedi. You absolutely need standards on how to behave, and those need to be backed by technological and social mechanisms or things devolve into a toxic mess. I think most of us are with you so far. However…
@scottjenson @dalias I think much of the reason you’re receiving a less-than-friendly response is: there‘s a rather bitter irony to the fact that reps for the Mastodon organisation apparently are wondering whether something should be done about it now it’s affecting people pushing for an ultra-centralised technological future. And not when marginalised groups have asked for better moderation tools and the ability to limit who can reply to/mention them for literal years.

@pmdj @scottjenson Those problems would be largely fixed by reply controls and a working* block function, but for some reason Mastodon team can't give us those.

(*) By "working", I mean a block function that detaches all past replies by the account you're blocking from your posts, so that you're not serving as a billboard for their opinions every time someone expands your toot.

@dalias @pmdj @scottjenson > By "working", I mean a block function that detaches all past replies by the account you're blocking from your posts, so that you're not serving as a billboard for their opinions every time someone expands your toot.

Wouldn't this mostly be a UI thing?

The objects would still have the "in-reply-to" field pointing the same way.
@lispi314 @pmdj @scottjenson No, it's a matter of how your instance responds (and how other instances sync that) when queried for the thread context around one of your posts. This is not mere UI.
@dalias @pmdj @scottjenson I dislike the notion of mutating the objects, as followers of the one that got blocked may prefer to see the replies by one they explicitly follow (probably unlike the other party).

(This also becomes a question of who one trusts more and that's not a choice I think should be made for the users.)

@lispi314 @pmdj @scottjenson If you have a client that's stitching them together, that's your business.

But my instance should not be using the "fetch context of this post by me" action to advertise hostile replies by someone I've explicitly blocked to others who are reading what I've written.

@dalias @lispi314 Yeah, the mutability argument is pretty weak; posts are already mutable: you can edit or entirely delete them. I don’t understand why that can’t extend to cutting off unwanted branches, or retroactively changing visibility.
If my post gets boosted too much and attracts toxic attention outside my usual community, my only options are to either bear the abuse (feebly blocking individuals) or to delete it for my followers too.
@scottjenson
@pmdj @scottjenson To be clear, @dalias's response answers my concern entirely and is fine by me.
@dalias Yeah, see my second post, I couldn‘t quite squeeze all the context into one.
I really don‘t understand what @scottjenson is getting at, or why this sudden concern. I mean, it‘s great if they genuinely want to improve quality of discourse, but “hey, be nicer to the people shilling for the tech oligopoly that’s eating up all of the world’s energy & computer hardware, undermining labour, & stealing all the creative works in the world” hints at questionable motives.

@pmdj @dalias
First, I'm using AI as an example, I'm not endorsing AI at all.
Second, and only as an example, there are open source people working on ethically trained local small language models. Again, I'm NOT endorsing them, but I can pretty confidently say that they would NOT be welcome here.

The same applies to journalism, there are VERY strong emotions here, basically telling them to fuck off (their words, not mine)

My point is that there is a pattern here: there are topics this community actively hates and "patrols" against. If that's what the community wants, cool, I'm not here to dictate anything. My point is that it might be nice to have a slightly more open way of sharing ideas: Follow, block, filter. You have the tools to make the feed you want (there are clearly more tools that would be helpful)

I'm just saying that focusing on your feed seems more healthy that attacking people whose opinions you don't like. Here, let me me give you an example of what I got 10 min ago

@scottjenson @dalias So, any social network if a significant size has always had enclaves and subcultures; the federated nature here actively encourages that, so making generalisations about “THE community” is even more of a reach than elsewhere. There are thousands of communities here, most of them overlapping, some very much not because of defederation.
You can quickly get shitty replies if your audience is big enough for whatever reason. Yes, it’s a problem. But…
@pmdj @scottjenson @dalias Yeah, this. The swarm of loud anonymous voices will always deafen you. (I block on an instance by instance basis because some of these put out nothing but anon hit and run accounts). But they're not everyone, and they're certainly not representative of everyone on Mastodon.
@pmdj @scottjenson @dalias If only we could control who could reply to our posts on Mastodon... https://github.com/mastodon/mastodon/issues/14762
Enable Twitter-style Reply Controls on a Per-Toot Basis · Issue #14762 · mastodon/mastodon

Pitch Twitter's reply model has been extended with some LJ-like features. Replies to a tweet can now be restricted to: Replies only from accounts @-mentioned in the tweet Replies only from accounts...

GitHub

@pmdj @dalias Yeah, social media always attracts jerks. Just saying I'm not having a great day right now...

That reply is likely a distraction. I'm just saying that I'd like the fediverse to have more discussion more ideas more exploration and I feel that many of the people we'd like to attract don't feel safe doing that.

I'm not dictating anything, I'm just trying to create an environment that attracts more people that think outside our bubble.

@scottjenson I can imagine it’s no fun. Perhaps the Mastodon core team could learn from this experience by listening to the people who are hanging around *despite* the toxicity they experience?
And I’m sorry, but Fedi (& everywhere else) has been *chock full* of discussion and debate over disagreeing viewpoints on the whole AI thing for years. It gets rammed down our throats absolutely everywhere, so I don’t think arguing for more debate on that topic will get you much sympathy.
@scottjenson But it’s not “the community’s” fault - we don’t vote on who gets to join, and that’s kind of the point. You can run and moderate your *server* however you like, but if you’re just a user, you don’t have all that much control.
The people who have been bearing the brunt of the toxicity over the years have however suggested many a way to improve the situation, and so far it’s mostly gone unheard.
@dalias

@scottjenson I'm with @pmdj on his point that, there's no good reason to consider that the opinion of all or even the majority of people here. The way this works, wouldn't even make that any individual is connected to every other individual, same applies to instances. This by itself would make it likely not representative, but people might even be blocking topics and words and accounts about AI and have no idea of what's happening on AI threads.

@dalias

@scottjenson we also know that nay sayers and assholes are usually more vocal than, people who like, or aren't concerned about something, and who are polite and respectful.

This doesn't mean that this noisy people aren't problematic, or act problematic about some particular topic, just that they need to be put into perspective, reported and blocked.

@pmdj @dalias

@DiogoConstantino @scottjenson @pmdj "Polite and respectful" are not ideals to aspire to. Fuck no to tone policing. That you've lumped "naysayers" and "assholes" in the same group says a lot. In this domain and in lots of domains, the assholes are entirely the boosters, not the naysayers.

@dalias I strongly disagree that polite and disrespectful is not something to aspire. Being human towards others is something we should aspire. I police whatever I want to police on my feed, I recommend others to do the same.

It says exactly what I said, naysayers and assholes are always the most vocal. This is what I said, and it's precisely the full extent of what I said, anything more is not my opinion, it's not mine, and you're not entitled to say which is my opinion.

@scottjenson @pmdj

@dalias You're free to not be polite and respectful towards others, but personally I've found that being polite and respectful is better for me, and since I also can choose to behave how I want and give my opinion, that's what'll do.

@scottjenson @pmdj

@DiogoConstantino @scottjenson @pmdj What I mean by tone policing is that often people with important critiques get dismissed for not being sufficiently subservient ("polite") towards power, when being subservient obviously would not get them what they need. And here on fedi, tone policing has been a classic vector of anti-Black racism. I would much rather hear someone speaking truth to power "impolitely" than hear someone being an apologist for power "politely".

@dalias to be polite and respectful, is not to be subservient. You can be those two things and stand your ground, be direct and say your thoughts, even veemently. We just don't need to dehumanize, to insult, dogpile, be obnoxious, or to behave even worse.

I'm not perfect, and I'm sure I did wrong to some, but I do aspire to strive for good and positive human interactions.

@scottjenson @pmdj

@DiogoConstantino @scottjenson @pmdj The details lie in who is evaluating the distinction..
@scottjenson Isn’t it fun to try and talk about nontrivial things on social media? :)

@jonikorpi haha yeah...

I'll completely own the fact that I didn't set up my argument correctly but the desire of so many to intentionally misread what I said and actively shut down any attempt at a conversation is frustrating. I mean I was used to this on Twitter, it's just as bad here.

I was told it should have been a blog post which was good advice.

@scottjenson @pmdj @dalias

> My point is that there is a pattern here: there are topics this community actively hates

My problem here: I cannot just stop advocating against the current strain of AI only because an overwhelming majority here also dislikes it.

I suppose others are in the same position and --- bam! --- you suddenly got a community that dislikes AI.

Looking for root causes, I'd guess that is, because such a lot of creatives (in a wide sense) are here.