I generally like mastodon.technology/ as an instance. There are some good people there.

But I will straight up block that entire instance if the behavior displayed by @AskChip is acceptable.

@Are0h h-how about just blocking that one user?

:blobpeek:

It really sucks when instances get banned instance wide for anything but legal reasons, its sucks for all users on both instances. I myself had to deal with that kind of stuff... which made me dislike the fediverse, when I first came here.
Follow

@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.

@Are0h well I personally like individual blocklists much better but yeah it may be much to ask of new people to maintain such a thing them selfs when they can just go back to what ever platform they came from.

in the end good moderation is still very hard to pull of imo, making everything decentralized makes it much harder when not nearly impossible.

@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.

@fence Thats probably @GinnyMcQueen mentioned bigger instances don't work from a moderation point of view and thus blocking them for creating a safer space is usually a good idea because they are unlikely to care @Are0h

@rhonda @fence @GinnyMcQueen If that's the case, then what is the point of moderators?

If you're going to put the onus solely on individual users to maintain a safe community, that makes the idea of moderators completely irrelevant.

@rhonda @fence @GinnyMcQueen Oh shit, I reread what you said and I misunderstood.

My bad.

@Are0h No worries. I know misunderstanding happen way too easily. My point was that the bigger an instance grows that it's more unlikely that useful moderation can work. And thus bigger instances are very unlikely to be considered safe. @fence @GinnyMcQueen

@rhonda @fence
I hear you, and part of me agrees.

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.

@Are0h @rhonda @fence Hoarding users on huge instances is bad for so many reasons. 😇 Moderation, power dynamics, centralization, etc. etc...

@GinnyMcQueen @rhonda @fence Yeah, you're probably not wrong.

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.

@Are0h @fence @rhonda @GinnyMcQueen

That's an interesting idea. From your experience what would you say is a 'small instance'? Or turned around: what's the threshold of unruliness?

1000 users or more?

@ckeen @fence @rhonda @GinnyMcQueen As my instance is still pretty small, I'm still trying to figure that particular point out in a manner that is conducive to my community.

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.

@Are0h @GinnyMcQueen @rhonda @fence

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)

@Are0h @GinnyMcQueen @rhonda @fence

(2/2) get to know each other at all. It defeats the point of the Fediverse as my ideals see it - a swarm of communities, and a community, from definition, is something where people more or less know each other.

@phoe @rhonda @fence I would disagree with a couple of points.

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.

@phoe @rhonda @fence @GinnyMcQueen That said, I do understand why capping instance sizes would be a sensible solution.

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?

@phoe @Are0h @rhonda @fence

Sorry I'm not in the mood to explain what it's like for marginalized people on the internet. 😇

@phoe @rhonda @fence @GinnyMcQueen You don't understand because you're not the target of frequent bigoted attacks.

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.

@Are0h @GinnyMcQueen @rhonda @fence

Hm. You're most likely correct - I think I'm a quite stereotypical white male capable of coding who has always lived in an ethnically and racially homogenous place with conservative values all over the place (Poland), so I don't have the experiences you describe.

@Are0h @GinnyMcQueen @rhonda @fence

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.

@Are0h @GinnyMcQueen @rhonda @fence

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.

@phoe @GinnyMcQueen @rhonda And now that you're aware of your culture context, you can make different decisions so you don't remain the stereotypical white main that you describe yourself as.

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 @rhonda @GinnyMcQueen @Are0h hello disabled, poor, working class, underpayed swiss IT guy here.

can you please untag me? thank you

@phoe @Are0h @rhonda @fence @GinnyMcQueen It's so great if you can't imagine that it could be this bad. It means you've got privilege and can consider yourself very lucky.

@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.

@phoe Most people don't get it that their silent acceptance of abuse is enabling the abuse and thus they are in fact *not* acting in good faith by not acting at all. So yes, while most people believe they act in good faith the truth is that they don't @Are0h @GinnyMcQueen @AzureKingfisher

@rhonda @Are0h @GinnyMcQueen @AzureKingfisher Yes, I can understand what you say, and that's the part that convinces me.

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Social @ PV

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.