mastodon.art has decided to suspend firefish.social from their instance due to issues with its administrator. The administrator of firefish.social was found to be boosting posts from a known harasser on another instance. mastodon.art takes a firm stance against racism and suspending full instances in these situations is part of their policy as a safe space. The known harasser has a history of using slurs, harassment, and editing screenshots to spread misinformation. However, the administrator of firefish.social has now forged a screenshot to paint mastodon.art in a negative light.
The point is that as a user I have no control who else is on the instance but could get defederated anyway.
From the posts I’ve seen several admins have clear mental health issues. Silly rivalries and imagined upsets cause whole instances to be defederated. It’s sad in a way as most federations have councils or independent regulators to step in so that members don’t lose out by the actions of others. But not the fediverse.
most federations have councils or independent regulators to step in so that members don’t lose out by the actions of others. But not the fediverse.
There are at least two technological solutions to that at an end-user level:
Apps (including webapps) that let people both easily interact with defederated instances, and block instances themselves.
User migration between instances, which right now are kind of working on Mastodon, and kind of pending on Lemmy/Kbin/etc.
And one at a pro-user level:
Run your own instance and federate with whoever you wish.
There are proposals for creating “councils” that could keep blacklists, whitelists, chains of trust, and whatever else, but once analyzed more in depth, they all seem to lead to more knee jerk reactions, not less.
Hehe, the irony of this… is that’s a good rule for this instance… but the whole kerfuffle seems to be based on armchair hypothesizing about individuals not just by how they post online, but by how someone who they might be two or three times removed from by online association, may have posted online at some point.
Guess it goes to show what happens without that rule.
Yes and it’s already been discussed whether this post should be removed. There’s no quick and easy answer to a question like this, so much as there is a lot of shades of gray. There can be valuable discussion here so long as we take into consideration how to do so in good faith in a public forum.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !technology@beehaw.org
A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
The point is that as a user I have no control who else is on the instance but could get defederated anyway.
From the posts I’ve seen several admins have clear mental health issues. Silly rivalries and imagined upsets cause whole instances to be defederated. It’s sad in a way as most federations have councils or independent regulators to step in so that members don’t lose out by the actions of others. But not the fediverse.
There are at least two technological solutions to that at an end-user level:
And one at a pro-user level:
There are proposals for creating “councils” that could keep blacklists, whitelists, chains of trust, and whatever else, but once analyzed more in depth, they all seem to lead to more knee jerk reactions, not less.
I would advise against armchair hypothesizing about the mental health state of individuals based on how they post online.
Hehe, the irony of this… is that’s a good rule for this instance… but the whole kerfuffle seems to be based on armchair hypothesizing about individuals not just by how they post online, but by how someone who they might be two or three times removed from by online association, may have posted online at some point.
Guess it goes to show what happens without that rule.
Yes and it’s already been discussed whether this post should be removed. There’s no quick and easy answer to a question like this, so much as there is a lot of shades of gray. There can be valuable discussion here so long as we take into consideration how to do so in good faith in a public forum.