Re:Fosstodon is now invite only
by dredmorbius on Friday September 22, 2023 @07:51AM
(#37610770)
One other point that I've been trying to ignore, but have decided I can't:
I notice that you keep using weasel words like "reasonably" and "generally" and "tend" and "typically"...
Yeah, well, if I'd used absolute language, the obvious attack would be "Hah! I've found one example among the ~25k Fediverse servers which fails to follow the moderation practices you describe!" Which is to say, of course, that with roughly 25,000 individually-administered servers, of course there is variation in moderation practices. Again, this is a key feature of decentralised networks.
But again: in most cases the factors which call for, erm, moderation in moderation mean that excessively broad-brush actions tend not to be undertaken by larger, or even modestly-sized, instances, and that the total affected populations are relatively small. That poorly-administered instances face backlash (or departure) by their own affected members is another element to this.
Those tools are there for a reason, their design is inherent to Mastodon's function (other Fediverse apps and servers have similar capabilities), and as with all regulation, tools which are effective when manipulated with skill and wisdom are of necessity dangerous when used carelessly or maliciously. That applies to every tool starting with the first scratch-stick and hammer-rock.
There are also recommended guidelines and practices, though much of that remains somewhat informal. Mastodon's creator, Eugen Rochko, has written on the topic however: <https://blog.joinmastodon.org/2018/07/cage-the-mastodon/>. Though broad, and focusing on technical details, Rochko details why features such as global default search (
People and brands search for their own name to self-insert into conversations they were not invited to") and quote-reply (Heed, my followers, how I dunk on this fool!). That is, there is some direction for how well-administered instances are expected to operate. The server rules of Rochko's own instance can also serve as a rough outline:
1. Sexually explicit or violent media must be marked as sensitive when posting
2. No racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, xenophobia, or casteism
3. No incitement of violence or promotion of violent ideologies
4. No harassment, dogpiling or doxxing of other users
5. Do not share intentionally false or misleading information
Toot.cat posts a code of conduct, generally restricting: Personal attacks, Trolling or insulting/derogatory comments, Public or private oppressive language or actions, Other unethical conduct, red flags (detailed in a link). Again I'll note that the admin someone I've known for a long time, and she's run, moderated, or helped design community criteria for a wide range of diverse communities over decades, with infinitely greater patience and tolerance than I'd show myself.
There are also freestanding guides to moderation (this is, again, a decentralised federated universe), such as "A Guide to Moderating in the Fediverse: The Basics" <https://tenforward.blog/a-guide-to-moderating-in-the-fediver...>. And, I'm sure, numerous others.
As to the predictable, and extant, objection that those rules are vague and subjective, I'll note that this is similarly the case on the forum we're discussing this matter on, Hacker News. The guidelines are kept intentionally brief, and much of the actual guiding lore is to be found in the many, many, many moderation comments by dang (> 47k comments), sctb (~6k), and pg (~10k) over the years. (Totals are all comments, some concern matters other than moderation.) This is by design. As dang writes:
Here's a brief refresher: Curious conversation is good. Substantive comments are good. Thoughtfully sharing personal experience is good. Flamebait is bad. Personal swipes are bad. Ideological boilerplate is bad.
Those are excellent ideals for virtually any healthy community in my view.
And no, I don't always agree with dang. That ... would be obsequious, pandering, and utterly unimaginative. But I very frequently do, and even where I disagree, can understand why he's moderating as he is.
And finally: I really don't expect that BugsJustFindMe will be persuaded. I feel rather like the narrator of Tim Minchin's exquisite beat poem "Storm", and we'd all as well be back nine minutes in time. But I'm hoping that other readers might find reason and fair claim here, and reach an understanding and appreciation. As much as my faith in persuasion through rational argument has taken a profound hit over the past decade or so, that hope remains live for me.
I notice that you keep using weasel words like "reasonably" and "generally" and "tend" and "typically"...
Yeah, well, if I'd used absolute language, the obvious attack would be "Hah! I've found one example among the ~25k Fediverse servers which fails to follow the moderation practices you describe!" Which is to say, of course, that with roughly 25,000 individually-administered servers, of course there is variation in moderation practices. Again, this is a key feature of decentralised networks.
But again: in most cases the factors which call for, erm, moderation in moderation mean that excessively broad-brush actions tend not to be undertaken by larger, or even modestly-sized, instances, and that the total affected populations are relatively small. That poorly-administered instances face backlash (or departure) by their own affected members is another element to this.
That said, there are general tools for moderation, which are discussed in Mastodon's technical documentation, see: <https://docs.joinmastodon.org/admin/moderation/>
Those tools are there for a reason, their design is inherent to Mastodon's function (other Fediverse apps and servers have similar capabilities), and as with all regulation, tools which are effective when manipulated with skill and wisdom are of necessity dangerous when used carelessly or maliciously. That applies to every tool starting with the first scratch-stick and hammer-rock.
There are also recommended guidelines and practices, though much of that remains somewhat informal. Mastodon's creator, Eugen Rochko, has written on the topic however: <https://blog.joinmastodon.org/2018/07/cage-the-mastodon/>. Though broad, and focusing on technical details, Rochko details why features such as global default search ( People and brands search for their own name to self-insert into conversations they were not invited to") and quote-reply (Heed, my followers, how I dunk on this fool!). That is, there is some direction for how well-administered instances are expected to operate. The server rules of Rochko's own instance can also serve as a rough outline:
1. Sexually explicit or violent media must be marked as sensitive when posting
2. No racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, xenophobia, or casteism
3. No incitement of violence or promotion of violent ideologies
4. No harassment, dogpiling or doxxing of other users
5. Do not share intentionally false or misleading information
<https://mastodon.social/about>
Toot.cat posts a code of conduct, generally restricting: Personal attacks, Trolling or insulting/derogatory comments, Public or private oppressive language or actions, Other unethical conduct, red flags (detailed in a link). Again I'll note that the admin someone I've known for a long time, and she's run, moderated, or helped design community criteria for a wide range of diverse communities over decades, with infinitely greater patience and tolerance than I'd show myself.
<https://mew.toot.cat/mw/Toot.cat/CoC>
There are also freestanding guides to moderation (this is, again, a decentralised federated universe), such as "A Guide to Moderating in the Fediverse: The Basics" <https://tenforward.blog/a-guide-to-moderating-in-the-fediver...>. And, I'm sure, numerous others.
As to the predictable, and extant, objection that those rules are vague and subjective, I'll note that this is similarly the case on the forum we're discussing this matter on, Hacker News. The guidelines are kept intentionally brief, and much of the actual guiding lore is to be found in the many, many, many moderation comments by dang (> 47k comments), sctb (~6k), and pg (~10k) over the years. (Totals are all comments, some concern matters other than moderation.) This is by design. As dang writes:
Here's a brief refresher: Curious conversation is good. Substantive comments are good. Thoughtfully sharing personal experience is good. Flamebait is bad. Personal swipes are bad. Ideological boilerplate is bad.
Those are excellent ideals for virtually any healthy community in my view.
<https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26613795>
More by dang on HN's brief guidelines: <https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...>
And no, I don't always agree with dang. That ... would be obsequious, pandering, and utterly unimaginative. But I very frequently do, and even where I disagree, can understand why he's moderating as he is.
See, e.g., <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37566315> <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37258356> <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29493683>.
And finally: I really don't expect that BugsJustFindMe will be persuaded. I feel rather like the narrator of Tim Minchin's exquisite beat poem "Storm", and we'd all as well be back nine minutes in time. But I'm hoping that other readers might find reason and fair claim here, and reach an understanding and appreciation. As much as my faith in persuasion through rational argument has taken a profound hit over the past decade or so, that hope remains live for me.