"Is Mastodon becoming an echo chamber?"
I dunno. What even is 'Mastodon' in this conversation?
I'm on dice.camp because I like their moderation & federation decisions. If you're on a different instance, how "echo-y" your "echo chamber" is may vary.
But if you don't like it when people are picky about who they associate with & how, just go hang out on mastodon.social or whatever.
I thought a big part of the value of Fedi is how much choice we have over who we associate with.
Why is it a bad thing that people who are choosey about their online experience don't want to listen to AI-shills?
It's interesting how important it is to some people that you supposedly shouldn't be choosey about who you associate with.
The person I saw talking about this framed the "problem" of AI-shills being "unwelcome" on Fedi (not sure I buy that either—they seem to have their own corners of Fedi) as the same thing as Black users being harassed/unsafe/not included, which is just absurd.
It's very "blue lives matter" coded, ya know? Like, being a techbro is not an inherent part of who you are.
Agreed. Perhaps I could amplify that point for any bystanders who aren't yet convinced?
If I'm Black, or disabled, or a woman, or neurodivergent, or gay, or trans, or any of a hundred other things, then that's a fundamental part of my identity. I didn't choose it. I can't change it. Anyone who refuses to talk to me because of that characteristic is intolerant. Allowing me to participate as an equal in Fedi makes the place more diverse.
Conversely, if I argue in favour of AI, that's not an immutable part of my identity: it's something I choose to do at present. I can always change my mind later, or just talk about something else. And it's perfectly legitimate for people not to want to engage with me on that subject, just as I choose not to engage with people who talk a lot about sports, because the subject bores me.
One of these things is intolerance; the other is just curating one's Fedi feed. It's deeply misleading for people to blur the difference between the two.
@dasgrueneblatt @CppGuy @artemis
I agree - just as with in-person communication, you choose your conversations.
However, if you go further, intimidating people or actively calling for accounts to be banned because they disagree with you, it should be for a good reason, such as hatred or racism.
Otherwise, if everyone you meet agrees with you, what's the point of posting at all? You won't learn anything. I'd rather be gardening.
@Anne_Delong
Obviously, yes. In my experience of the Fediverse, that's where the instances, their policies, admins and moderators come in. There's accounts and instances I will never see, but I'm fine with that. There's lots of stuff in real life I don't need to experience first hand either.
On the other hand, if I see any intimidation, racism or the like, I try to always respond immediately and call it out, and I report stuff to the moderation, because it is in violation of the instances' policies.
I've been thinking about your last point. Isn't there more that just agreeing/disagreeing? I've had or read some very nuanced, interesting, fruitful discussions full of strong disagreements here. I guess there's aspects like shared interests (with opposing opinions), or shared values (with opposing opinions), and probably more.
@dasgrueneblatt @CppGuy @artemis
Yes, the most interesting discussions are sometimes those in which the participants explore a topic, not mainly to sway others to their point of view, but also to develop further their own knowledge, thoughts and feelings.
Artemis
C++ Wage Slave
dasgrueneblatt
Anne Delong