🎓 Dr. Freemo 🇳🇱 @freemo@social.cleverlibre.org

@realcaseyrollins I think it might have been a spoof, I dont recall now.

@ejg the beauty of the UFI is there vcan be more than one.. if they feel marginalized, leave the community, create your own federation with the same or similar or different rules

The UFI doesnt need tto be one monolithic entity but it is meant to "group" servers that have the same code of conducts as eachother.;

@flsounds I am yes

@ejg Any such tool would be central to the UFI ideally (We can use gitlab at first)... So id support it too.

That said the problem is these people arent very rational.. providing evidence alone wont help. There needs to be a "protective bubble" of solidarity as well, everyone just saving their own ass when one instance is attacked is not sustainable. Too many good instances have been lost

@ejg

Ignore that last version, here is a better one I think:

The solution, therefore, is to ensure due process, enable discussion and to do so in a transparent fashion visible to all parties and with all sides having a chance to present evidence. While good-actor instances shall remain unified and federated amongst each other, any instances that have not shown to be good-actors by joining the United federation of Instances (UFI) are not under any special protections, they should be allowed to be moderated by instances however an instance sees fit. However non-UFI members should not be assumed to be bad actors either, simply not being a member of the UFI should not imply a certain prejudice on its own.

@ejg I changed the last paragraph to this, better?

The solution, therefore, is to ensure due process, enable discussion and to do so in a transparent fashion visible to all parties and with all sides having a chance to present evidence. While good-actor instance shall remain unified and federated amongst each other, any instances that have not shown to be good-actors by joining the United federation of Instances (UFI) are not under any special protections, they should be allowed to be moderated by instances however an instance sees fit. However non-UFI members should not be assumed to be bad actors either simply because they are not members of the UFI.

@ejg Great idea, agreed.

@kefir

https://qoto.org/about/more all our extra features are listed

@trinsec

@ejg The idea here is that the UFI itself wont need to be universal, but its due process log will act as a tool for those in and out of the UFI...

Any claims against or for servers in the UFI will be logged and the evidence logged and transparent.. So if an instance out of the UFI want to decide for themselves they still have access to the evidence and can make their decision in an informed way.

@ejg The idea is that if someone is not moderating their community then they can be czalled out for it and will be kicked out of the UFI... thats why we have a evidence based due process... as long as there is evidence then they wont last in the UFI.

@ejg The intent is to make sure that those not in the UFI are **not** seen as bad actors.. I explicitly left out any concept of assuming non-UFI members were bad actors. The idea is that if you arent in the UFI people in the UFI can judge on an inndividual basis how they want to handle you

And yes it adds a layer of beurocracy, but the intent of that layer is to ensure blocking is done in an informed and evidence based manner

@Gina I think you are the only one left who didnt hear about it... I posted this here, which actually explains the drama, but the result was its now all over the fedi and in the news and everyone is talking about it:

https://jeffreyfreeman.me/eugen-rochko-ceo-of-mastodon-found-to-support-nazis-agenda/

@Gina I assume you've already heard all the fedi drama im at the center of? Other than that stressed and busy, but my company is still on track to go public so everything is good in that regard.. personal life is a bit boring, have a girlfriend now though, but sadly i dont get to see her as often as I'd like.

@Gina hey long time no see, how ya been?

@Romaq

Well said and I agree, the public forum will be critical and notthing is final without public discussion. We just want a good starting point is all.

@ejg

@dashrandom

Yea while an open forum will be an absolutely vital step before enacting the UFI I think it is critical to first curate a group of people interested in it in private, get a decent first draft, and ensure there is some degree of support before going public. Only to counteract the irrtional nonsense flying around.

That said we already have a decent following brewing so i think when we do go public with it in the next few days it will be well balanced and give us a chance to make sure everyone is heard all the same.

@ejg

@ejg The discussion WILL be int he open, we just need to refine the draft enough that it makes a good first impression.. the intent is to put it on a git instance and open it to **everyone** to submit feedback and vote before enacting anything.

@ejg I am fine with a backlash, but i wannt to make sure the backlash is once the idea is refined enough... people often wont take a second look if initial impressions arent good.

@ejg We can create a provision where they are allowed to silence said instannce (not defederate) temporarily until the hearing is settled.. easily solves the issue.

Keep in mind an instance has to go through an approval process to get in, this means they are checked to see if they have a history of such problems.

@tsomof I agree its a problem, a big one... shall I consider you an interested party then (I will send you the draft and get you involved int he convo when i start the thread)