🇳🇱
I am gathering a list of people who want to be involved in the discussion around the formation of a "United Federation of Instances" which is an attempt to combat the fracturing of the fediverse and the general spreading of misinformation WRT moderation decisions.
If anyone is interested in being a part of it let me know in the replies. I will add you to the list, share the draft proposal, and we can start discussions. I have several people already interested.
@freemo why not just publish the draft first and have the discussion in the open? I would think you could generate more interest that way.
Have you reached out to other instance admin about this?
I feel like this could result in some negative unintended consequences. De-federation, and the social threat of de-federation is the main tool to apply pressure to instance admins that are not sufficiently moderating their community.
This seems it would make that process harder.
@ejg The intent is to do just this.. I just want a good starting point to kick off the discussion.. So im starting with a private discussion, going to refine the draft there, then im going to open it to everyone to contribute.
Yes I am working in private to get some admins and even users on board. I dont want to go public till we have a decent number of supporters just to help counter any backlash people might throw at us.
To your comment about making it harder... sort of.. an instance can always leave the UFI for starters, second, that process SHOULD be harder, at least in terms of collecting evidence and having some due process. The beauty is having curated evidence means even servers outside of the UFI can, if they wish, use us as a source of fact-checking..
@freemo
> that process SHOULD be harder
I'm not sure that I could agree with this statement. If I'm and instance admin and my community is experiencing a lot of harassment/abuse from a given instance, I wouldn't want any roadblocks in the way of protecting that community.
@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.
*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.
@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.
@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.