Mastodon politics, safe spaces, and breaking the federation for fun and profit.
https://blog.xomg.net/mastodon-politics.html
@NthTensor that's mostly because the US has federal law and organization, our federation is based on the common protocols so we can still be federated even without federating with everyone.
But then the whole concept is federation is about limited centralization, so we're already pretty far :p
@CobaltVelvet Excellent.
@CobaltVelvet I'm curious, do your users know who/what you ban, or at least your general policy? If so, I think 90% of folks are already on board with you doing as you please, myself included.
The controversy, at least from my end, is admins censoring without disclosing this to users. That's using subterfuge to take away individuals' freedom of association. The issue isn't "banning is bad" but "tricking users is bad".
@HedgeMage I like transparency too, I've always published the instance's ideas and goals on its /about/more page, many people joined after reading it because they liked it. I can't really be much more open than that.
And as I don't have any authority outside of this instance, anyone is free to publish any criticism or conspiracy I'd be doing against someone.
@CobaltVelvet It sounds like you are being perfectly reasonable.
Certain instances featured in a number of articles get many newbs who don't know the landscape. They have a CoC but don't disclose that they silence/ban entire instances rather than misbehaving individuals. Their users generally seem to think they are seeing the whole fediverse minus some spam, which is not at all the case: they get a really distorted view instead. That's disingenuous at best.
@CobaltVelvet That should be nailed on the front page of every instance.
@CobaltVelvet That was a good read.
@CobaltVelvet email is federated just as #Mastodon is. All (sane) hosts ensure "positive delivery" within the network. That's why we have spam folders. It ensures that even an incorrectly marked message gets delivered to its intended recipient and no information is lost. Given that precedent, federation works best when every named recipient gets their messages no matter what.
@profoundlynerdy But that's just wrong, nearly all common and business e-mail hosts directly discard part of the incoming spam or don't even allow mail from the most spammy networks. Whole ranges are completely blacklisted by most existing e-mail hosts, and some ISPs block outgoing SMTP ports because of botnets.
We too have some completely blacklisted instances that we don't want to interact with at all and some just silenced that people can still follow if they want.
@CobaltVelvet That's correct for bulk senders of unsolicited advertisement or fraudulent material. Those are both variously criminal.
Senders are not subject to *viewpoint* discrimination by the email network itself. Nobody ends up on a RTBL because of their personal opinions, however condemnable.
@profoundlynerdy I don't ban whole instances for just opinions. Harassment is criminal. So is variously hate speech outside of USA and threatening people.
Instances are blocked for endorsing these variously criminal acts under the name of free speech.
@CobaltVelvet You are correct, if a persistent (not one-off) communication raises to the level of harassment under the law. Besides, you can block me easily if you don't like what I say.
Hate speech is too valuable to lose. Such pathologies as baseless hatred need to be studied and understood. Further, if it's not baseless, it's neither bigotry not hate speech. As a student of history, I much more fear the one-party echo chamber.
@profoundlynerdy That's the exact moment where I link you that article I just wrote that answers exactly that.
I completely agree with you, but not on my instance. This is for peaceful people to be happy and respectful.
@CobaltVelvet If you want to make having alt accounts seem extra cool, a useful Cold War analogy was that US military members often had two US passports: one that says they've never been to Israel and one that said they never visited Egypt.
@CobaltVelvet Good post. Making the case for the confederation.
—
It is worth noting that a federation has mandatory inclusion. You cant leave.The united states is a good example of this.
—
A confederation does allow "states", in our case instances, to enter and leave at will.
—
What we really want is the confediverse.