Show newer

@yisraeldov @freemo @louis Rather than being premature optimization, this is late in coming. You might not be aware of this, but in the absence of a central authority, self-moderating instances have joined together to build domain blocklists that are shared widely and based on nothing more than the say-so of one or two people.

While mastodon does have plenty of tools we can use to block content that we don't want to see, many instance admins choose to really aggressively block entire instances without any due process or evidence or opportunity for counter-evidence. I've seen QOTO described as having "no moderation at all," something I know to be factually false. I've seen entire instances blocked because of the actions of one non-admin user, which is the right of any server admin, but doesn't bode well for federation. I've seen entire instances blocked *not* because of something anyone said or did, but because the instances were insufficiently aggressive in promising to seek out and block other bad instances. It's mind-boggling, and scary for anyone thinking about running an instance of their own.

Primarily at this point, the UFoI is about a guarantee of due process, which is currently lacking in the fediverse. It might not cause the super-aggressive blockers to change their approach, but it will at least guarantee that smaller instances won't be completely isolated from everyone on the whim of someone at a big server having a grumpy day.

If mastodon were as safe and friendly as you say it is, the UFoI wouldn't exist, and the hashtag for BlackMastodon wouldn't be filled with people saying that they're seeing worse treatment on Mastodon than the bird site. I'm glad your personal experience has been positive, but that is not the case for everyone.

@skobkin

Yes and that should be encompassed in the getting started part... that said i think getting started needs a rewrite.

@ufoi

@skobkin

So get rid of apply? I dunno I'd get rid of the getting started first, the apply seems the most important part.

Im open to seeing what otehrs think though.

@ufoi

@skobkin

As buttons? So three buttons? Or is the fact that we added it to the header ok?

@ufoi

@LeneBe

I dont think anyone thinks COIVID is over really. They just think the time for masks are over and we cant live like that forever. The risks of COVID are more acceptable then a life in hazmat every time we go outside... I think this was inevitable and went on longer than one might otherwise have thought.

@erictopol

@sam@masto.dotsod.com @ufoi

I need to check, I think one of our instances was 50K users... across 15 members we have about 200K users

@louis

The problem is once you have these issues its too late, and the damage done is hard to reverse.. by having all the evidence in the open it will help protect you as you grow as an instance against these sorts of attacks.

It gets much worse as you grow usually.

@natharari

@carcosa

It is a democratic system. If you feel that QOTO is a bad-actor, then all you have to do is report us, then the other instances in the UFoI will vote ont he evidence. If you are correct QOTO gets kicked out.

But keep in mind joepie91 was already shown to be taking things out of context, manipulating, and lieing about the facts.

As you can see below our CSAM policy is very explicit and we DO block CSAM despite the claims in your link. This was our policy from **before** the person lied about it, so he has no excuse.

Your link, if anything, shows the need for UFoI, so actors liek Joepie whoa re going around lieing, knowing their lieing, have some accountability. No one is expecting QOTO to get a free pass, the assumption is only that there must be due process so the evidence is prevented rather than exactly what you are doing, having misinformation spread without being challenged.

@louis

> While I appreciate what you are trying to do here, I think one of the beauties of the "fediverse" is that instances are self moderating.

UFoI doesn't take over moderation for instances.

> I think that small instances are the best way to go and keep mastodon safe and friendly organically.

Reality is that neither you or I can’t force all instances to be small instances. I can say that the value of UFoI is massive to small instances.

As a small instance operator, I can tell you that smaller instances are constantly at threat of being defederated by larger instances if we don't do what they say. If one of them labels us as anything; who do other instances trust more? The 10-person instance or the instance with 10,000 people?

If the larger instance says that an instance has some hugely offensive problem, and you choose to not block that instance, well now it looks like you're in support of that thing. That instance now says you're that thing too because you didn't defederate and they're going to defederate you too.

Now, perhaps some of these are true, and some of these are just personal gripes between people. What the UFoI helps us establish is a set of minimal standards to adhere to for federation that most of the Western world can at least work within (I would expect very restrictive regimes would have problems with it). It establishes evidence requirements so that instances can’t be just defederated over personal issues if they’re a UFoI member.

For larger instances, this sort of thing also helps against inter large-instance issues for similar reasons, but also having a clear process and standard to work within reduces the amount of headache trying to just maintain a service.

@louis Well, we are trying to come up with the wording of our Code of Ethics together... so I agree with your concerns.

A better question for you, what wording of the code of ethics would be better than the current wording to address your concerns? It is very likely we can update it if there are no objections.

@louis

To be fair getting off the list is not my goal with the UFoI... its an abusive list and that is obvious to most who see it. My intention is more general... to provide a counterforce to arbitrary block lists that are manipulative and suppressive evidence... adding due process to accusations that is transparent and democratic.

In reality my expectation is once the UFoI is officially launched I will step down as temporary council member, have someone new elected, and then if anyone wants to bring the accusation from the block list against me I welcome it... let the evidence decide. I may very well get kicked from my own creation if people feel I violated the rules, and I would be ok with that.

@akib

@otfrom

first off its democratic, not run by anyone.. Since we have strict rules if you wish to report me then the evidence will come to light and I can be booted like anyone else.

Also see the huge discussion about QOTO int he talk page, you will notice counter evidence was presented to show the evidence for the QOTO ban was a lie. they refused to post the counter evidence and clearly lied... so to use that as "evidence" if anything proves the need for UFoI, specifically due process and evidence based decisions, rather than this list ran by a single dictator who suppresses evidence and goes out of her way to lie... yea this is trash.

@louis

@dump_stack As an american I can tell you Americans are over the top melodramatic... there **are** a lot of legit issues, but its not nearly as bad as most people say and the worst parts are not usually the things you hear about.

The most grim aspect of the USA is needing to deal with the melodramatic, always offended, americans that have infested the place.

@yisraeldov

That hasnt changed... most instances who join the UFoI will already have rules that are compatible with the ethics.. no one tells them how to moderate, they just continue doing what they are doing.

The protection is that **if** someone accuses your instance of being a bad-actor instead of gossip and random block lists blocking you you will have a chance to defend yourself and show you are, in fact, a good actor... you also have the option not to defend yourself and simply leave, in which case the case is dropped.

Moreover instances are free to moderate themselves by whatever additional rules they want anyway.

I strongly disagree with the "premature optimization" aspect, there is a **huge** issue on the fediverse that needs a solution, one many instances have been the victim of countless times. We are trying to address that, it is just ordinary optimization, a problem was identified, we are trying to fix it.

@louis

@yisraeldov

Again feel free to suggest a better wording if you want, these rules are up for debate and modification so just jump in and suggest better wording

@louis

@yisraeldov

> Glad that you replied. The circumventing bans is completely reasonable, but you already have that listed separately to the harassment.

Indeed we do, but while there is overlap this isnt the same.. harassment is when someone explicitly tells you to disengage and you continually engage them, or make calls to dogpile someone who has been left alone. In short if it is very clear that you were **explicitly** told contact is unwelcome, yet you intentionally and repeatidly engage the person anyway, this would be harassment.

> Mastodon has plenty of tools that we can use to block content that we don't want to see, so having a policy against harassment, is kind of pointless.

How do block calls to dogpile, you cant, you would have to block each person one by one and only **after** you are harassed. Keep in mind the rules are only against **explicit** calls to dogpile

> As a moderator I've seen way too many times people claim harassment as a way to just shut down an opinion they don't like.

You are right, this is a concern for me also. This is why harassment is very explicitly defined and not just someone being annoyed you contacted them. That said, please, if you think there is better wording just go make a merge request, everything is up for debate.

@louis

@RogerBW

Yes B can either drop out or they can silence the server but remain federated, up to them.

There is no penalty for joining and leaving though, so worst case scenario you are back where you started, no harm done.

Keep in mind the UFoI is not meant to include the whole fediverse. We picked rules that would allow the vast majority of instances join, those that want to be part of a larger community. Other instances are welcome not to join, there is no "penalty" for not joining.

Long story short, no harm in joining up until you want to defederate, then just leave if it ever comes to that.

@louis

@dekkzz76

Waiting a while is certainly an option, though keep in mind there are a few advantages to joining early..

1) there is no obligation, any intance can leave at any time without notice, so nor eal downside to joining

2) Right now application is simple and quick since we dont have the full voting architecture up yet.. after about a week it will take weeks to get in and be a bit of a process and require a bit of effort

3) The order of instances on the public list is based on the order they join. So the earlier you join the more users you will get through our directory

4) namespaces (like the link to individual users profiles) are first come first server, so all the short or cool profile names might be taken later.

Other than these points though there is nothing stopping you from applying at a later point.

@louis

Show older
CleverLibre Social

CleverLibre Social is an inclusive social instance for open discussion, learning, and community.
All cultures welcome.
Hate speech and harassment strictly forbidden.