Email or username:

Password:

Forgot your password?
Top-level
🦊 Paul Schoonhoven πŸ‰ πŸ‹

@thibault I think it is a good thing that that is done on server level so people have a choice.
If Mastodon wants to play a serious role in the social media landscape things are a little bit more complicated as black&white.
@Gargron

9 comments
Ben Royce πŸ‡ΊπŸ‡¦

@vosje62 @thibault @Gargron

i think it's pretty black and white that threads is the same company whose algos got us into this mess

i think anyone who sees working with meta as benign is naive, at best

and i think mastodon not blocking threads is deeply unserious

you don't get "to play a serious role" serving the very same malice that mastodon was created to oppose

you get laughed at and then discarded

Steve Barnes

@benroyce, @vosje62, @thibault –

But you didn't respond to Paul's point. Wasn't the whole point of Mastodon to provide an *alternative* client for an *open* network that no individual or company needs permission to use, allowing for a plurality of values and policies across instances?

By all means, pick an inherently walled technology if that's what you want, but asking Mastodon to be that seems like asking Mastodon not to be Mastodon.

Ben Royce πŸ‡ΊπŸ‡¦

@Starfia @vosje62 @thibault

I think at this point we're well past the "if you don't let plutocrats and nazis on your network you're a hypocrite" argument, wouldn't you agree?

Freedom doesn't mean letting actors who oppose freedom free reign- a logically sound point. There is no contradiction

Because we're talking about a social contract

I grant you as much rights as I grant myself

If you use those rights to say someone doesn't deserve rights, you've voided the contract and I owe you nothing

🦊 Paul Schoonhoven πŸ‰ πŸ‹

@Starfia I think you are right. The open structure is the basics of the system. So far there are enough 'unwanted servers' around that don't get federated. With Threads it is not different.

- Both servers and individuals can set the bounderies they want. -
(that is why the options are there!)

That's is how it works for all parties.

@benroyce @thibault

Ben Royce πŸ‡ΊπŸ‡¦

@vosje62 @Starfia @thibault but more importantly that subset of servers that does block all of dark fedi and threads and bluesky and gab and truth social, etc, are those servers expressing the freedom of the network the best

because you fail to comprehend the threat plutocrat, bigoted, and fascist actors represent to the freedom of the network

BjoernAusGE

@benroyce such opinions show how good it is that everybody can host a fediverse (not only Mastodon) server itself. So no admin can censor the network for me because he/she thinks that there is a dark fediweb e.g.

That makes the fediverse a great network.

@vosje62 @Starfia @thibault

Ben Royce πŸ‡ΊπŸ‡¦

@bjoern @vosje62 @Starfia @thibault

agreed

someone can make any network they want

any rules they want

but if their rules suck (bigotry, etc), they're relegated to obscurity

as they should be

we simply let the pieces fall where they may, and we stop pretending bigotry and tolerance can coexist

they can't

BjoernAusGE

@benroyce

Beeing honest: i dont like it when users put pressure on admins of big instances to block other whole instances because they dont like the way they operate, or because they belong to companys like Meta etc. Its something totally different if admins block instances that are legally problematic.

If somebody does not like that fact that eg mastodon.social federates with Bluesky etc. he/she is free to block the mentionings for themselfs, switch to another Mastodon Instance with a different block policy or to run an own fediverse server.

The fediverse has that possibilities which you dont have when using x etc

From my point of view that is way better than to censor the network for all other users on the server.


@vosje62 @Starfia @thibault

@benroyce

Beeing honest: i dont like it when users put pressure on admins of big instances to block other whole instances because they dont like the way they operate, or because they belong to companys like Meta etc. Its something totally different if admins block instances that are legally problematic.

If somebody does not like that fact that eg mastodon.social federates with Bluesky etc. he/she is free to block the mentionings for themselfs, switch to another Mastodon Instance with a different...

Ben Royce πŸ‡ΊπŸ‡¦

@bjoern @vosje62 @Starfia @thibault

nothing you said disagrees with anything i said

a mastodonserverpact+ that says no to threads and bluesky doesn't mean you have to join it. it also doesn't mean servers aren't willing to join the + pact of their own free will. this is voluntary, coordinated group action

if it is appealing enough along with other provisions in the + pact it will grow and be successful

and, forgive my directness: who gives a shit if someone doesn't like it

it's voluntary

Go Up