 social.coop, the Mastodon instance that I'm mostly on, is a coop, so users like me get to vote. An important vote just closed, about whether to federate with Meta's Threads or not. I don't quite agree with the outcome, but it is something I can live with as a compromise, and I VASTLY PREFER this messy, argumentative, and lengthy (yes!) process of member democracy over any unilateral action by any instance administrator or overlord, even if they are quite benevolent. Others should emulate. 11 comments
@ricmac "Proposal: if Social.coop federates with Threads.net, ... moderate Threads.net at the Limit level, while remaining empowered to apply higher levels of moderation to Threads.net or Threads.net users as needed (and as they would for other instances)." ... ie: "A limited account is hidden to all other users on that instance, except for its followers. All of the content is still there, and it can still be found via search, mentions, and following, but the content is invisible publicly.  @J12t so an individual user could follow a Threads user (amd vice versa), but it sounds like the instance could still ban that Threads user later if it deems it necessary? @J12t The thread was ridiculously long with people talking past each other. The proposal was passed despite 74% of only 98 people voting. That's out of 375 members with a Loomio account, and 536 active users of the instance. It wasn't run well, what constituted an outcome wasn't clear, and it hasn't been communicated outside of Loomio. @dajb Ah, I agree on those. But: I don't think we know, as humanity, how to collectively make informed decisions well. Loomio is a better tool than most, but I was most missing a "let's agree on the facts" first, like what Meta may or may not be able to do technically wrt social.coop. |
Gregory's Server
@J12t what was the outcome?