If you are the administrator from a "safe" instance, please block my instance and add me to your blocklist under whatever pretense you believe fit, I don't want to have to deal with your bullshit if someone on my instance do something you don't like.
Naouak, admin from ika.moe.
PS: Can you boost this toot so that it reach all people concerned. Thanks.
@Naouak Je lisais ça : http://eduscol.education.fr/internet-responsable/ressources/legamedia/responsabilite-sur-le-web.html
Mastodon rentre dans ces "cases" là ?
@Naouak that's fair, and unfortunate that it happens, but I really can't blame people for wanting to block racist/nazi/anti-semetic content because if it's on the federated timeline then it could turn away users
arguably the owners of such instances believe it's worth the cost of the people using those blocked instances, if it means less potential users are turned away
@Naouak sure, and that's not right, but generally being a Nazi includes calling for genocide, the expulsion or killing of non-<specific race> groups of people, generally some belief in race science (lol) etc.
I agree the line is hard to draw, but it's not impossible, and whether it's "nazi" or "just less than nazi" is to the owners of those blocking instances, irrelevant, if they don't want to bear the risk
@Naouak Is this an anime avatar fascist crying about shitty instances being blocked by bigger instances
@Naouak Well I read your timeline and you're crying about instances that foster hate speech and abuse being blocked calling it "the end of Mastodon"
Literally please just go back to 4chan or whatever hellhole you crawled out of
@Naouak As one of the admins involved, who's seen the entire development from the admin teams side, there is no abuse of power. If power was abused it was when we were nudged to unsilence by Gargron, before we had a protocol in place (something we've been starting working on in the past week or two, now that users can mute servers on their own.). This resulted in us doing so without proper communication. Which we're working to remedy now.
@Balor I'm sorry, I'm currently working an hour over my daily limit, and I've been dealing with things which are inducing physical stress symptoms for me all day.
I was just giving you a heads up about what it is going to contain and not trying to word it "perfectly".
What of the protocol will be about what to do in that instance tho, when we are about to do a silence or unsilence, as it pertains to communication.
At the time you didn't use your CM account which is a different one so I didn't know who you were (and this isn't the point). I tried to discuss about my moderation policy but you, you always bring up the problematic user on the table. This is not about this idiot, but about ideological différencies.
Also, it was already too late. mastodon.social silenced us when the polemic started. Try again...
@wonderfall By the polemic, I assume you mean the Nazi CW thread?
The problem here is maybe just that some things are getting lost in translation.
When we have a user on a server which harasses more than one of our users, we will contact that admin. We did, with you.
Unfortunately (maybe because of the language barrier) it came off as you were not interested in dealing with the problem, nor interested in discussing it with us.
This continued to show that you were not interested, and especially would not ban/remove a user because we asked you to, in other conversations as well. Some of them were in french, and we got help with translations from our French speaking CM, to understand your stance on the issue.
You continuously doubled down, on defending "free speech" even if you did not do it directly to us.
As we did not want to strong-arm you into taking action against a user you did not want to take action against, we saw this as you not willing to moderate your users. You even said so yourself, the less work I do the better.
We found as admins on m.s, that it would be best for us, to protect our users from further harassment from your server to silence your server. So we did.
@maloki @Naouak @noelle "The less I do, the better" might be really clumsy. That's why. My notifications column was flood with tons of comments, and since this is not my mother tongue, sometimes I make shortcuts that doesn't sound like to you the way it sounds like to me.
There's a part true in what I said, but I didn't want you to see my instance as not moderated at all.
By "We", you mean one CM of your team asking me about the problematic user ? If I recall well, I answered my line was to do nothing until there is nothing explicit I can work with. The discussions didn't go further or it was unclear.
Moreover, this is a repetition from what happen with the previous instance ban, with the same user as the source.
To me this thread is enlightening about the clear lack of communication between instance Moderator and admin.
@Balor @Naouak @maloki Stop it. I keep seeing this phrase: "without hearing his side". Wonderfall was an active participant in that conversation. I heard his side, I just didn't agree with it. If your definition of "heard his side" is "changed my opinion" then I don't know what to tell you, because that's not how literally everyone else uses it.
This is how you interpreted the situation and the end of your message can be understood as a threat.
If it's not the case, I apologize, for I have misjudged your meaning.
@Balor @Naouak @maloki I can only see that as a threat if you think of silencing an instance as a punishment. I certainly don't think of it that way - I don't want to /harm/ WF or s.t.h, I want to /protect/ m.s's users. I have no desire to cause anyone pain through moderation or to use silencing as violence, and it's genuinely upsetting that people think of it that way.
@maloki @wonderfall @noelle @Balor I don't understand then. Isn't the point of decentralization to let administrator do what they want on their policy? Isn't the point of fediverse to try to make it works with each others?
Why should you ask the stance of the admin of another instance if you have a problem with a single user? If only it was a recurring issuers with multiple users, but no, there was only one.
You're MS you're the center of communication. Silencing and an instance is not the same for you as it's for a small instance.
You are blocking the communication, the federation and the discovery of new content coming for the silenced instance.
And last but not least, how do you think other instance react when the center is silencing? They follow.
You are the proton of the mastodon fediverse, the other instance are the electron.
You have more power than you seems to acknowledge, your decision are driving 80k users. 80k people communication.
You have a sphere of influence, like it or not. All the instance want to federate with you since you hold most of the accessible content.
- 80k accounts != users.
- Signups wont be open again to encourage people spreading out.
- 80k is only 11% of the Mastoverse, and even less of the entire Fediverse.
- Silence still does not stop any MUTUAL concenting communication. As you can see by us talking with Wonderfall.
- Protecting our users according to our guideline is our first priority.
- Following German law, is our second priority.
@Balor @Naouak @maloki This is, in no small part, why we've shut down registrations and have no current plans to reopen them. We /want/ the user base to spread out; that's the whole point of federation!
Also, I should note two things: first, I'm the one who wrote the first draft of the new silencing procedures; and second, I run elekk.xyz, one of the /smallest/ instances, and I wrote it from the perspective of "what would I want if m.s decided I was screwing up?".
You are punishing the silenced instance.
You have also to think you can be wrong, your protocol need to take that into account.
"what happens if MS screwed up the silence/ban" is as much important as what you said.
We're human, we make mistakes, all of us.
@Balor @Naouak @maloki No, I don't acknowledge that silencing means punishment, and I don't appreciate that you're putting those words in my mouth. If there's a problem I'm not taking care of a) I want to know about it, and b) I want m.s to know that I know about it even if I decide not to handle it and accept that that means cutting my users off.
Yes, we're human and make mistakes; /that's why we have the new policies/.
@maloki @noelle From what I seeing there, @wonderfall is true to french values and culture and you are just forcing on him your culture saying his is wrong. (France let Front National speaks because we would in our opinion be the worst one if they could not speak)
Now, I think the main issue is the response to the problem: it is disproportionate. The issue is with one user, the instance policy about that should not matter.
@maloki @noelle So we disagree about that point. Here the problem is one user but you painted the whole instance as bad because the administrator has a different set of values from your team. In my opinion, this kind of thinking means that the fediverse can't exists as one big network but as several per cultural values network.
@wonderfall After your server was unsilenced there were still 1000 accounts on your server silenced. Probably all the accounts which would've federated to the public timeline otherwise. So it is possible that @noelle never received your message because they were caught by the no-notification part of the silence.
@maloki @noelle @Naouak Okay, I give the benefit of the doubt (so you recall what messages I'm talking about) - like I said Gargron was following me, but I don't want to blame him, he has many other things to do.
But that doesn't change the fact that no efforts were made before the second silence.
I won't let anyone say I'm not open to discussion since it's not true. And even right now, you can DM me, I'll answer.
@wonderfall The second silence was literally made to "UNDO" the first incorrect unsilence, because we did not follow a protocol we wanted to have in place for unsilencing people.
Then you decided to make a huge deal out of it, even though we told you that we would look at unsilencing in due time but we needed some time to figure out how we wanted to deal with these situations.
@maloki @Naouak @wonderfall To add to this: the intent of getting you on the discourse servers is not to make you "answer for your acts". Again, it's protective: sunlight is the best disinfectant. We want to make absolutely sure - especially after this weekend - that there's a public record of the decision-making process so that nobody can accuse anybody of shady dealing.
@wonderfall @Naouak @maloki If you'd rather hash things out privately, with the understanding that we'll be publishing a digest of the results, I think we can accommodate that. Our goal in the public appeal is to STOP people from saying "oh I bet Wonderfall paid them off, what about the next server?" or something like that.
@wonderfall Okay, then I think we can finish off here for today, and just say "we'll be in touch".
And promise each other we wont write anything to antagonize or instigate the other side for a grace period of 7 days, so we can sort everything we need to sort out first?
Because that would be highly appreciated.
Okay, I don't want drama too, in fact this conversation should be better in a private place... I said everything I had to say in my article, I wish I could translate it directly. But I think you know my point somehow. At least I hope so.
I will focus on my instance future in the following days so you won't hear much about me.
Okay, but I'm afraid this a lot work to do so maybe it could be summarized (though it can be dangerous, I made it 3000 words so it can be really clear).
Also I'd like to make sure you know we may disagree because we certainly have cultural differences. I'm sure you want what's the best for your instance and I want what's best too, but we don't share the same perception. And I think that fundamentally, no one should claim something is right/wrong.
mastodon.social has its line, I'm fine with it, but it has consequences on the Fediverse too.
Spend a good day/night (it's really late here).
@maloki @noelle @Naouak Like you said I made a huge deal with it, but that was surely not the only reason why I decided to let it go. This was the missing factor so I could do that. On top of that, I didn't want to cause my users more trouble because of this drama I didn't want.
Insults + tons of explications to do + being blocked + silenced by mastodon.social, this made me so tired I do want to get away. And this is my right. If you want to debate this, I can still debate but not as an admin and there's plenty of people thinking like me.
After our instance was unsilenced, I took time to write a message so they could read it. But they didn't answer it. And the next day, I learn my instance is being silenced with a public statement... That is not what I call effort of communication.
But you know what, I can give you a second chance too. Perhaps you were not ready yet with your protocol and things should've been transparent. I'd like to see how you will deal with something like this in the future.