The Raspberry Pi social media (Mastodon) brouhaha from last week was bugging me, so I worked out some thoughts over on Medium.
Thanks to @jeffjarvis for the original link.
@jmproffitt @jeffjarvis I’m afraid I can’t agree with the reasoning at the end.
Instances have/form cultures. Behaviours model cultures compatible or inimical with those instance’s own. Moderators are both protectors and arbitrators of those cultures.
Whether blocking Rasberry Pi was because of bad behaviour in response to critical feedback (of which there was plenty of both) or a policy decision based on their embrace of state surveillance, it expresses culture
@Tupp_ed @jmproffitt @jeffjarvis Agreed, Simon. There’s also a basic free speech issue here; instance admins cannot be required (or, I think, reasonably expected) to provide a platform for someone else’s speech against their will.
@gabrielquotes @Tupp_ed @jmproffitt @jeffjarvis
Interesting, I knew nothing of the Pi incident, but am intrigued by the implications of instance blocking. Is there a way for Admins to publish their block list?
I understand that it is the privilege (and right) of the Admins to run their instance as they wish, but I do like the idea of them being open & sharing their intentions up front.
That way I can decide if I want to remain.
@sflanagan @gabrielquotes @Tupp_ed @jmproffitt @jeffjarvis Responsible instances will keep a public list with reasons/evidence (usually on their about page).
Irresponsible instances block with reckless abandon based on rumors.
@Tupp_ed @jmproffitt @sflanagan @LouisIngenthron @jeffjarvis Again, I’d challenge the idea that that’s ‘irresponsible’. Instances aren’t a court of law and there’s no obligation to follow due process (any more than for an individual’s blocklist).
@gabrielquotes @Tupp_ed @jmproffitt @sflanagan @jeffjarvis There's no law against pissing into the wind either, but that doesn't make it any less irresponsible.
Blocking entire swaths of users for arbitrary, capricious, and often-unverified reasons strikes me as quite irresponsible indeed.
@LouisIngenthron For something to be irresponsible, there must be a responsibility owed. To whom is the responsibility owed in this case?
@gabrielquotes To their users. Just like the responsibility you bear for any other guest you invite onto your property.
As owners of the property, they're free to set whatever rules they want, but they should then strive to adhere to those rules consistently. Arbitrary and unexplained decisions just erode trust.
On top of that, they also bear a responsibility to the fediverse. Obviously, not everyone has to federate with everyone else, but defederating for arbitrary reasons disconnects and damages the network effect of Mastodon as a whole.
@LouisIngenthron But an instance owner doesn’t owe users any sort of duty only to block after due process - any more than the owner of a shop owes their customers any duty to continue stocking mozzarella cheese unless and until a proper investigative process has taken place.
Users who don’t like the way their instance is run have a very, very easy solution.