Email or username:

Password:

Forgot your password?
Top-level
Marco Rogers

@tillshadeisgone my actually point that very few people want to address is if you care about privacy, why aren't you doing anything about your actual privacy? Why are you waiting until somebody announces that they're gonna do something you're uncomfortable with? Why aren't you rethinking the decisions about what instance you joined and what controls you have?

"I'm concerned about harassment on the internet. I guess I have no choice but to join the dogpile on this one guy".

7 comments
wet forest moon folklorist replied to Marco

@polotek thanks Marco, you’re making a ton of sense and speaking clearly. these are great conversations to be having and I appreciate you opening a few new ways to think about it

the people's eva replied to Marco

@polotek I mean, my personal answer is that I have done something about it. I've moved servers multiple times and currently I am primarily using an instance that I own.

But as I mentioned earlier, the things I have that allowed me to make those decisions and follow through with those actions are not available to everybody in equal measures. Furthermore, migrating servers is considerably easier than it used to be, as I understand it. But it's an imperfect process that can still sever connections even if you're very careful about how you do it.

When we're talking about an important project like the bridge, all I am saying is that it would be nice if the person doing it would consider those who are not as replete in the technical know how, time, and determination that makes all of these features easier to navigate. They deserve to be considered too. Their consent should have been sought through an opt-in mechanism.

This is one of my biggest issues with a tech heavy space like the fediverse. A lot of people seem to think everyone who doesn't know as much as they do about technology are fucking idiots. Not everyone who has trouble moving servers is unintelligent or reckless with their privacy. The condescension from people who work in the field about what every hypothetical user should be able to do easily is absurd and alienating. We should be making decisions with all of our users in mind, NOT JUST THE SAVVY ONES. It's not unreasonable and it's not unfair.

And in the category of questions not addressed, WHY is it so important that he gets to do this?! What's so hard about opt-in????

I've asked you multiple times, and despite you claiming to have addressed every point raised to you directly, you haven't said anything about it. So I'm not going to say anything else to you until you answer.

@polotek I mean, my personal answer is that I have done something about it. I've moved servers multiple times and currently I am primarily using an instance that I own.

But as I mentioned earlier, the things I have that allowed me to make those decisions and follow through with those actions are not available to everybody in equal measures. Furthermore, migrating servers is considerably easier than it used to be, as I understand it. But it's an imperfect process that can still sever connections even...

Marco Rogers replied to the people's eva

@tillshadeisgone I did address it. But sure. I'll do it yet again. I didn't say that I think he should be able to do this. I don't have an opinion either way. What I said was nobody can stop him. Nobody is in charge. You keep trying to have a moral argument with me and I'm politely declining. I don't have any power to dictate what that guy does and does not get to do. And I'm making decisions accordingly.

Marco Rogers replied to Marco

@tillshadeisgone is that clear? I know it's not the answer you were hoping for. But it is a direct answer. Is there a different way I can directly answer your question so that you don't have to keep repeating it? Let me know.

the people's eva replied to Marco

@polotek actually, that was helpful. My last response will be this:
Sometimes people get upset when other people do things that they don't like that affect them, even when they have no power to stop them from doing it.

And it's great for you and for me, who have our own instances, and who have taken whatever steps we felt were necessary in light of that. So I can understand why it's not important to you.

But there are other people, who don't have what we have, who get to have it be important to them. They get to be upset. Hell, I'm in community with some of these folks so I'm upset too.

I guess that's just going to be baffling to some people and I'll just make my peace with it

@polotek actually, that was helpful. My last response will be this:
Sometimes people get upset when other people do things that they don't like that affect them, even when they have no power to stop them from doing it.

And it's great for you and for me, who have our own instances, and who have taken whatever steps we felt were necessary in light of that. So I can understand why it's not important to you.

Marco Rogers replied to the people's eva

@tillshadeisgone none of this is "baffling" to me. I understand everything about why people are upset. You seem to confused because I'm still suggesting that being upset is not sufficient to solve the actual problem. People seem to think that having random strangers acknowledge that you're right to be upset will somehow make everything okay.

Jennifer Moore replied to Marco

@polotek

Is it like, you're looking at this bridge episode as indicative of the overall Fediverse structure being inadequate for privacy/safety, whereas most people (me too I admit) have had their focus on the shape of that one particular situation?

kind of like "don't get hung up on this one particular example with this one particular guy, there's a bigger picture which needs attention"?

@tillshadeisgone

Go Up