😬

I don't want to talk about this, but I must.

UFoI has been floating around, purportedly to govern a shared code of conduct and ethics for instances.

From a cursory glance at the ethics they claim to represent, it looks good.

However, the particular instance that's captaining this whole thing is well known on Fediblock.

Many folks -- for good reason -- believe this is an attempt to compromise the effectiveness and integrity of Fediblock.

To a certain extent, it already has. 🧵

/2 Now let's back up regarding Fediblock for a moment.

Fediblock *should* be the nuclear option for moderation. But recently, more people are opting for the nuclear option by default.

Fediblock is not a "super block".

If you have a personal beef with an instance admin, or don't like members of an instance, you can block them yourself.

Crowding Fediblock with personal vendettas causes admins to work that much harder to participate on Fediblock.

But I should acknowledge a further problem...

3/ To be completely, honestly blunt, moderation tools on the Fediverse suck.

Blocking is essentially a hammer, and not all moderation should require a hammer. Sometimes you need a screwdriver.

I've personally requested that Mastodon and other Fediverse software start getting serious about pro-active moderation.

I understand a whole lot of people don't like more moderation tools, but more moderation tools means less of a need to always block.

4/ Unfortunately, a lot of instances signed up for UFoI because, from a cursory glance, it looks like they have good intentions.

But because they're now associated with UFoI -- even if briefly -- they are now indiscriminately on Fediblock.

This is guilt by association.

And unfortunately, too many instance admins block everything that winds up on Fediblock without investigation.

This isn't being proactive, it's being reactive and lazy.

5/ Now a few folks have said, "Everyone who was part of UFoI deserves their Fediblock because they didn't do their due diligence!"

Mistakes happen.

But guess what? People, including admins, can learn from their mistakes.

If admins have made a U-turn, give them the good grace to allow them that.

Otherwise, when you make a mistake -- and you will -- grace will not be extended towards you.

Believe me.

6/ Considering Fediblocks, we must acknowledge there's a whole lot of grey, and ethics are not as binary as they seem.

For example, I eat meat.

Should I be put on Fediblock because many vegans are offended by my lifestyle choices?

Maybe I should. I don't blame them. I'm doing something that fundamentally goes against their values, and I don't blame them for blocking me.

But are their values your values?

Maybe, maybe not.

7/ We also need to consider that Fediblock has diminishing returns if we keep doing it again and again.

Right now, it's effective because presumably, if an instance winds up on Fediblock, every instance on the Fediverse has decided they did something so horrible, they deserve total and utter dissociation.

Which is why when Gab found itself on Fediblock, it was effective. Even mobile apps blocked Gab.

But if you block every divergent instance, you're quarantining yourself.

8/ Here's what I genuinely worry about regarding Fediblock.

More Fediblock means a diminishing network effect.

A diminishing network effect means someone else -- quite often the *wrong* party -- gets more power over it.

Do you want to surrender the network effect to someone else? Or do you, as an admin, want a say in federation?

Because once the likes of Google claim the bulk of the network effect, then *they* decide who is on Fediblock.

Spoiler: they already do this with email!

9/ What am I getting at here?

1. Fediblock should be done on a case by case basis, with investigation
2. Don't do Fediblock just because a hashtag tell you to
3. Allow admins and instances the allowance to change if they've indicated good faith
4. Reserve Fediblock for your own "worse case" scenario
5. Don't give up your network effect, and thus diminish the power of Fediblock