Gregory's Server@tw @stux With respect... imo there's a stark difference between calling out a Nazi account -- which I agree, should be done -- and outright telling people who to block. If you call out the account/instance, others can see for themselves why they may choose to block that person/instance. I block relentlessly, mostly for personal reasons, and I never make a "thing" about it. It's just a personal mantra -- I do my best to refrain from dragging others into my bad experience.
|
12 comments
 @tw @sugarcheri Basically we handle a 'simple policy' on that part; if content is dangerous/harmful or illegal we block and remove it but when 'we don't like' an instance admin or isntance for example it's up the the users themselfs As long as it's not harmful, thats the most important. People should be safe on there and also make decision in a safe area @sugarcheri @stux (I also mostly don't agree with "threaten to or block an instance just for them not blocking one other instance" - but there is an argument for "this instance explicitly never blocks anyone" being a red flag, as is "this instance knowingly/actively interacts a lot with bad actors and refuses to block them". But it's definitely more complicated / nuanced than "your blocklist must match mine" IMO.) @tw @stux Tim, you nailed it imo. The "your block list must match mine" is authoritarian and cult-like behavior. If someone is openly posting Nazi-sympathizing content then it would be great for us to be made aware of it so we can choose to block (or not). However -- barring extreme circumstances -- ultimately who we block needs to remain a personal choice, or we risk becoming what we believe to be fighting against 💕 @tw @stux Yes, I kinda get the same impression after reading your reply now. Good point. I'm sure Stux and other mods have more to deal with than most of us even realize. Btw I think I feel like you -- Fediblock is a terrific tool but even a good tool can be abused. If we all blocked everyone that was posted on Fediblock, none of us would be having any conversations at all! That said, Mstdn.social is a pretty large instance. I should think any mod who dares to block it will find that backfires.  @sugarcheri @tw @stux Every good & useful tool can be abused & manipulated by people with evil intentions. That's just a given. We can help keep each other safe by giving heads up to our own networks on problematic & abusive folks. @sugarcheri @tw There are really some /bad shit/ instances out there, trust me :blobcatgiggle: these days i know the url from my head but as a first time admin i think they should check just the timeline before blocking, for example it could just be one or two users instead of an admin doing the 'dirty work' :ablobwink: @stux @tw I'm sorry you're going thru this. Have mods/admins considered creating an instance for just mods/admins to join, so that first time admins can ask questions, learn, etc. A community where they can learn the ropes of being an admin? Maybe this a stupid idea. Tbh, I know nothing about running a server. I just tend to search out the most reasonable, diplomatic and proactive solution 🤷♀️ @stux @sugarcheri @tw Exactly & it's why I appreciate a solid & diverse team of admins/mods on different servers. |
@sugarcheri I don't know precisely what @stux is subtooting in this thread, if anything, but sure, I agree that Fediblock is, in fact, a recommendation, not a mandate.
The subtext I read is that Stux is getting pressure from someone to block some bad actor, or this third party will block mstdn.social. I understand the unhappiness about this, and that this third party may be communicating it poorly, but ultimately, just like Stux' position, it's their right to take their position.