7 ms·
The big instances don't care about the blocklist fascists. Mastodon.art consumes far more air than their users and those of their allies should receive. That b
by init2null 3y ago
The big instances don't care about the blocklist fascists. Mastodon.art consumes far more air than their users and those of their allies should receive.
That being said, there are truly horrible servers that get almost universally banned. Many have borderline-illegal content and the rest have toxic content and users. The large servers have maintained a block policy resembling old Twitter. Unless we want a festering swamp of toxicity, that seems like a fair compromise. Anyone desperate for Gab can join Gab.
- ok123456 3y ago>rest have toxic content and users. The large servers have maintained a block policy resembling old Twitter. Unless we want a festering swamp of toxicity, that seems like a fair compromise. Anyone desperate for Gab can join Gab. This is why Mastodon is doomed. Instead of being a common carrier, it seeks to make a network free of 'toxicity'---whatever that means. Anything that crosses over into regulating perfectly legal speech will draw the exact people who shouldn't be regulating perfectly legal speech.
- treyd 3y agoMastodon doesn't seek to do anything. Instance operators decide their own policies and users are free to join instances that follow policies they agree with.
- xigoi 3y agoThe official list of Mastodon servers requires servers to enforce strict rules about political correctness in order to be listed there.
- init2null 3y agoNah, toxicity is targeting a non-public figure for abuse or committing doxing. Toxicity is advocating for violence or other crime. It's a replying to a post with targeted insults rather than reasoned disagreement. It's racism and obvious sexism. You could summarize it as simple human decency. The majority of us can agree on these standards. Despite that, I see plenty of people violate them across the political spectrum. It shouldn't be tolerated or respected, but you can hold a wide range of political beliefs without crossing that line.
- xigoi 3y ago> Toxicity is advocating for violence or other crime. It's a replying to a post with targeted insults rather than reasoned disagreement. It's racism and obvious sexism. You could summarize it as simple human decency. This sounds fine without context, but according to wokeists, misgendering someone is “advocating for violence” and criticizing Islam is “racism”, for example.
- saagarjha 3y agoMisgendering someone is not advocating for violence. Pushing a false viewpoint that someone is a pedophile or trying to peep in on the wrong bathroom can be, though. Criticism of Islam isn't racism unless you are doing it on the basis of race.
- incompatible 3y agoYou don't have unregulated "perfectly legal speech" on Hacker News; posts can be downvoted until they disappear at the whim of users. That doesn't seem to have doomed the platform. Too much toxic content and spam, and I think there's a big overlap between the two, will make a platform unusable or at least undesirable to many. That's what happened to Usenet.
- toofy 3y ago> This is why Mastodon is doomed. i think its precisely the opposite. im skeptical of the "succeed" and "failure" descriptors people keep using regarding these places, but in terms of longevity, i think having multiple different spaces is precisely why Mastodon or some derivative will be booming. in the real world, we have different styles of spaces with different styles of behavioral expectations. and we have these precisely because people prefer that kind of freedom. if i want a nice quiet dinner, i don't go to the loud sports bar, i go to a quiet restaurant. if i want a loud drunken night, i don't go to a string quartet, i go to a club or something. i pick my space based on my mood. simple as that. its not complicated. bars and clubs have wildly different expectations of behavior for totally common sense reasons. i continually find it baffling (and honestly kind of weird) that some have convinced themselves that online spaces full of humans would be any different. ive noticed this weird tendency over the past couple of years, that a certain type of people (many of them seem to be from the same group strain of VCs) have been desperately trying to convince us that we all need to be in one space -- all of us, at the exact same time, and anything less than all of us at once is "failure". and that having multiple options is somehow bad... and im sorry, but nah, thx tho. sometimes we like a nice restaurant, sometimes we like to go clubbing, sometimes we like a coffeehouse with a few friends. again, this isnt complicated--its spaces full of humans, we have different preferences. this isn't new and it isn't shocking. this is why mastodon (or some later branch) will thrive ahead.
- kalleboo 3y agoMy experience is the opposite - any site that's created as a "free speech absolutist" site is doomed to become a cesspit nobody wants to visit, like voat.