|
Top-level
 I mean routinely as in if we regularly see direct abuse from threads users. individuals you can block/silence as a server but a flood of users there doing that shit would call for blocking/silencing that server at some point. imo we have lots of goals. I understand safety is the top one for many. I wish we weren't thought so poorly of for not agreeing . for trying to better balance it with other concerns. I don't think we will find compromises that work for everyone but should try. 9 comments
I think you are misunderstanding me. Defederation should be based on protecting the fedi as a network. On the fedi and www, there will be crap. And stuff many hate but you don't. On your fedi server or blog, post anything legal imo. But when you intentionally intrude on others' experience, there becomes cause for action imo because it can make the entire network a shitty place to be. That should be the focus of server vs server policing. We don't have a UN to determine what's "ok".  does saying "from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free" constitute antisemitism? Or "Israel is an apartheid state"? or "American politicians continue to support Israel because they are getting paid off"? I don't think any of that does but I completely understand others saying those statements either are directly or they endanger Jewish people. for people who think this, what I wrote above is crap. you can keep it off your server but defederating a server for it goes too far imo. now if somebody was clearly pro Israel and Jewish and somebody else posted what I wrote in replies to them once or twice during a conversation on the issues, that's probably not harassment. doing it relentlessly, esp if the replied to says they consider in antisemitic, clearly is. or doing it at random times. I'd argue the person should silence/block them or maybe eventually their server should. but only block their server if this is happening a lot from multiple accounts there. I did and of course you don't see it that way. I always bring up Israel and antisemitism to lefties cause it seems to be the only issue most of us see as justifying possibly upsetting people in order to discuss freely. were you around when people got pissed off about some liking the Harry Potter videogame or the BBC starting an instance even though they have transphobes on their shows? what's in the OP should be defederated from but you'd defend federating with harrypotter.social? @wjmaggos You deliberately seem to deflect that the OP talks about mastodon.social, their own server rules vs. threads.net and the shortcomings of Meta. Israel, Harry Potter or the BBC? This isn't about upsetting some people for some reasons – wich I'm fine with generally. when I was composing my reply, I had a line that that MS policy would have to change. so you're right that I didn't address that, but I think they're (we're?) gonna have to go the other way. |
Gregory's Server
@wjmaggos I think it is a sane approach to tie de-federation to how effective admins can control the activity of their instance and enforce good rules. It isn't the relative density of how big the proportion of bad actors is. By your approach we would be waiting for an IMMENSE TON OF SHIT hitting the fan before "considering" defederation.
You also don't sanction states by the amount of bad deeds of its citizens. You go about how what is deemed ok officially.