Email or username:

Password:

Forgot your password?
All posts Aral's posts Post Back to profile
Top-level
Dan Morris

@aral @Gargron This is a tough one, because a mastodon server has 2 choices: block users and block servers. Generally, you'd block a server if its own managers are unable to moderate their own users (thereby making it in the interest of the server managers to maintain some moderation). However, I think we can all agree that Threads is going to be a hot-mess that is never going to be seriously moderated.

So, the question is, "how" can this be done without completely cutting them off? Or, perhaps it's best NOT to accommodate them and just shut them off?

I have lots of family on Facebook, but my account has been inactive for 5yrs now. I'd like to avoid ever going there and just have them on here -somehow. But, I'd rather not hear from them and avoid hearing a bunch of nazi ranting and disinformation every day.

If there's a way to do it, it would be cool. If not.... meh. block them.

27 March at 17:36 | Wall-to-wall | Open on sfba.social
8 comments
scott f

@coldfish @aral @Gargron Here's a great essay on the dilemma of what to do about Threads: erinkissane.com/untangling-thr

I thought this point was key: "the line, for some of us, isnโ€™t about 'non-commercial' or 'non-algorithmic,' but about Metaโ€™s specific record of bloody horrors." Meta/Facebook is in some ways much worse than I realized

27 March at 17:44 | Open on carfree.city
misfit loser zealot patatas

@scott

I'd add, also, that the profit motive is arguably the single biggest reason why these those bloody horrors occurred.

No different from what Boeing has recently been exposed for doing: trading human lives in exchange for number goes up!

@coldfish @aral @Gargron

27 March at 19:14 | Open on mstdn.patatas.ca
Jargoggles

@coldfish @aral @Gargron
The fact that Threads is set up as a monolithic instance that prevents anyone from blocking it in piecemeal is a Threads problem, not a fedi server admin problem (the same is true of Bluesky).

Like you said, Threads can't be trusted to properly moderate its content and the tool that server admins have for that is defederation. Making individual users have to handle a deluge of toxic content themselves has *never* been seriously considered as an appropriate response by any instance that cares about its users.

The fact that Threads is so massive isn't a reason for federating with them, it's the reason why it's even more absurd to act like this is a problem that individual users need to deal with.

If we defederate from toxic instances that have hundreds, maybe thousands of users, why in the good god damn is it not an obvious decision when we're talking about an instance with *millions* of users?

@coldfish @aral @Gargron
The fact that Threads is set up as a monolithic instance that prevents anyone from blocking it in piecemeal is a Threads problem, not a fedi server admin problem (the same is true of Bluesky).

Like you said, Threads can't be trusted to properly moderate its content and the tool that server admins have for that is defederation. Making individual users have to handle a deluge of toxic content themselves has *never* been seriously considered as an appropriate response by any...

27 March at 18:13 | Open on kolektiva.social
Emme Ci ๐Ÿ‰

@jargoggles @coldfish @aral @Gargron
The fraction of toxic users on Threads is still small.

I believe there are ways to make Threads opt in at the user level, so that your users only have to deal with it if they want to.

That should be the preferred option, unless there is a clear consensus in your instance to fully defederate.

28 March at 7:29 | Open on freeradical.zone
zigguratmonk

@coldfish @aral @Gargron Blocking a server because of a lack of moderation makes sense. Threads is free to federate, but just because they are big doesn't give them a pass on community norms and standards. They can improve their moderation if they decide it is worth it.

27 March at 18:58 | Open on mastodon.social
P Stewart

@coldfish @aral @Gargron It's pretty simple: it *can't* be done without completely cutting them off, due to their size and Meta's active protection of most forms of hate speech. The solution's to treat them the same way most of fedi's already treated sites like Gab or KF.

27 March at 19:01 | Open on mastodon.sandwich.net
Sally Strange

@pstewart @coldfish @aral @Gargron Yep. It's actually rather simple. It's just that the correct course of action is inconvenient for ~some~ people.

27 March at 19:05 | Open on eldritch.cafe
Alexander ๐Ÿ˜ท

@coldfish @aral @Gargron

> Generally, you'd block a server if its own managers are unable to moderate their own users

It's more like "unwilling" than "unable" in Facebook's case, but you could have stopped writing right there...

27 March at 21:28 | Open on tech.lgbt
Go Up