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…

@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.