Show newer

@bonifartius I promoted it because its the only list I know of that only adds entries if they have evidence documented... if you know a better list im all ears.

A reminder for anyone new to mastodon who might not be happy with some of the racist and bad actors out there on other servers... Just import the fediblock list to your personal blocks and you will be safe from the vast majority of bad actors.

𝑺𝑻𝑶𝑹𝑴⛈️  
I took all the domains from https://fediblock.neocities.org/ block list and put it in a csv file that can be imported so you can block all hateful ...

@Hyolobrika

I share this post once a week and try to send it to each user. We are working on a technological solution.

@freemo

*The existing problem* that I see, was JoinMastodon unilaterally and non transparently turfing QOTO from its list despite QOTO at all times meeting its publicly stated requirements. On top of that, not having any receipts on how and why when questioned. Really is a violation of trust.
And that drastically effects new signup if JoinMastodon is represented as an authoritative list of where new people could go. When it is seemingly more just some guys friends list and is not actually done on its owns stated & advertised criteria.
There are all the public criteria for being on Join Matstadon then there are the double secret reasons
(some servers, in this case QOTO are excluded because :P<blows raspberry>. )

What is thus needed is a replacement for Joinmastodon, or an improvement in JoinMastodon.
One of the improvements might be that each server must tell us (potential new signups) what other servers on that list they block and why. other UI improvements is how to find server that suits the new user would also be possible.

===========================
As for mandating that servers don't block others. NOPE.
It is perfectly true that I have strong expectation that any @member@QOTO is likely basically immune to radicalization. (we've all met stupid a lot of times before, even stupid dressed up in academic clothes.) And given that QOTO so clearly says it doesn't block instances and has csv files to make it easy for individuals to make their own garden walled.
Then yes we, the members of QOTO are just fine with no blocks and we knew that coming in.

I don't agree that generalises to all servers and people. If someone wants to be on a server that clearly defines itself as a walled garden ... then that is not a second class server, its just one delivering things/features that I don't personally want or need. I do however respect that some people may well want or even need that.

I am even more than happy to make sure all new signups that want such a thing know where to find it.

@freemo
Also note while my initial statement above was in the public timeline. And I thought it belonged there.
It really has nothing to do with any proposal, it is me discussing the nature of the universe as I see it.
AKA me doing/living QOTO. (AKA if what I said is wrong smack me, I promise to enjoy learning from it.)

I also value the point (Someone else approx made) of preserving maximal degrees freedom for inter server argy bargy to resolve moderation. Moderation is going to get much harder, for some servers when the purposeful but clever not entirely good faith rules lawyers turn up (and start toeing lines in bad faith), and then bush lawyers any set rules we have against us. High functioning Stem severs may be up for that, I suspect the rest of the fediverse will enforce, Wheatons law, more by gut feels. I don't want any 'rules' in their way. The issue is the sign up list, and perhaps(?) secret block lists, so none know how much or little they signed up for.

I am also willing to participate in any closed forum, know how not to, drama drama.
but in all likelyhood will always have my own opinion. I rarely reach just the same conclusions on such topics as anyone else, but frequently decide there are no hills worth dying on.

@AlanOutback The thing is if any member of QOTO shows sympathy for radicalized ideas and starts expressing hate speech they would be kicked pretty quickly... Interestingly enough I've never seen a good-actor come here and then suddenly turn bad.

@otso

I dont mind them moving. But being dishonest and claiming we are "free speech" is a pretty ugly look.

I would be happy to help him setup a self hosted instance as ive done for users before.

@ypc_bunsen

@ejg I agree with you entierly... harassment is against the rules. If someone is being harassed they shouldnt be marginalized and kicked out, the server should report the other for harassment and they should be kicked out of the UFI

@ypc_bunsen That user is not from our server.. block him or his server.. we provided you a block list why arent you using it?

@ypc_bunsen The responses your getting is because you didnt turn on your blocklist... did you follow the instructions here?

qoto.org/@freemo/1093036879382

Also if anyone is harassing you you have to let us know and we will silence the server.

@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.;

@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.

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.