@fence In my experience being here, blocking does nothing to dissuade harassment and harmful behavior. Sure, it's an effective individual solution, but I think the greater point is making the fediverse a better place for everyone, not just white guys that know how to code.
Of course, some instances aren't going to share that sentiment and some are.
It's important to know who is and who isn't trying to make this place better.
Because that's what I want. A better fediverse.
@fence Oh yeah, to each their own. Do what works for you.
We'll agree to disagree about asking too much of people to maintain a healthy environment. I strongly disagree with the sentiment.
Sure, good moderation takes effort. We agree on that. But is very far from impossible. There just has to be the will to put in the work.
I would say that is the biggest impediment to quality moderation.
I think @GinnyMcQueen makes a great point on how larger instances just become unruly, but I'm not sure if that's a matter of effective tools or just the lack of will.
That said, I will say it is probably better to err on the side of caution in the meantime until we can deduce why larger instances are so poor at consistent, quality moderation.
But then again, limiting the size of communities may be a good best practice anyway.
I'd like to believe that there is a way to effectively manage larger instances, but that may be based in my own bias to solve problems.
It may just be better to flip the context and just have smaller instances to begin with.
That's a fair point.
While I want my instance to be a home as many people as possible, I do not want to replicate the issues we are discussing.
So, I'm not sure what that number is for my instance. I'm just going to listen to the members of my instance and adjust as I go.
From my point of view, it's much harder to manage instances (and therefore users!) that are too big. Huge instances with 10000+ users cannot get to know their users - there is just too many of them. I expect that, at some point, moderation there becomes just as it is on bigger services - anonymous people being anonymously silences and/or banned because there is no chance for the user and mod to (1/2)
Your view assumes that most are good faith actors. Anyone who views my or @GinnyMcQueen timeline on a daily basis knows this false. There needs to be distinction between people who geniuenly seek connections and those that just want to cause harm.
Second, none of the bigger services have actually committed to real moderation, so it's a bit disingenuous to use any of them as a baseline.
I'm not sure if I feel the inherent size of instances directly prevents people from connecting, but I will admit it definitely makes it more difficult.
And as an admin that prioritizes the safety of people that choose to use my instance, I'd rather err on the side of caution than experimenting at their expense.
@Are0h @rhonda @fence @GinnyMcQueen Hm. I don't think I understand the point of view where most people are not good faith actors. To me, it implies that, with a random group of ten thousand people, statistically, I'd need to distrust at least five thousands of them by definition. Or, for every Fediverse user seeking actual connections, at least one another would be banworthy.
Does this seem right?
Attempting to quantify it statistically is not an effective way of conceptualizing a problem when there are literally millions of people that talk about it every day throughout the expanse of social media.
Rather than trying to re-frame an experience you are not familiar with into a myopic context, it's a good idea to just listen to people who go through it all the time.
@Are0h @phoe @rhonda @fence
This is like those people who built a "smart dress" to show how often women are groped at clubs instead of listening to the half of the population about it. We are past trying to explain ourselves and quantify it into a spreadsheet for you when the problem would already be solved by listening.
So, using statistics from my point of view would mean that I only pick the people around me - and if my environment doesn't have many marginalized people, I won't see what you're describing now, and it also means I'm simply lucky to not be targeted by attacks, since I'm not marginalized myself.
I think I'm only beginning to understand what you all mean, and you're right, I understand most of what I already understood by observing and listening. Quite paradoxically to what I experienced before, the less I talk, the more I start to understand. Like, I don't think I'm the proper person to speak about this at all.
Sorry if I'm not being too clear; I don't think I even have the proper vocabulary to discuss this stuff.
You can make the choice to grow and learn as a person so you have the ability to empathize with people that don't come from your background.
@phoe Your numbers are far off if you believe that it needs fifty/fifty to make an instance unsafe. It takes only a few to make an instance unsafe, and a lot of bystanders that are ignorant of that and let it happen, "not doing anything" themselves. Actually they are doing something: they are enabling the abuse with not calling it out and accepting it within their community. And thus part of the problem @Are0h @GinnyMcQueen
@rhonda Wasn't something I believe - that's the question I asked when @Are0h said "your view assumes that most are good faith actors". Therefore I asked a question if it's incorrect to assume that most people are acting in good faith - something that was discussed elsewhere in this thread with @Are0h @GinnyMcQueen @AzureKingfisher and answered.
I find it correct that a single person can destroy a service's experience for a whole lot of people - I saw such a thing multiple times in the past.
Social is the primary social media platform for the forth coming fourth version of Play Vicious, a new initiative built to bring attention to the plethora of creative acts that don't get the shine they deserve.
For more details about the project and how to support, go here.