Follow

I got interested in this stuff lately and it makes my brain hurt and heart sink. What a drama on all sides.

I think it's a great example of silly games and feuds at the expense of users of these instances. An admin A does not like admin B and that is the reason for blocking thousands of users of B's instance from thousands of users of A. And that we call "moderation", right? Nice! (mind you, if B's users are ugly people in A's userbase opinion _en masse_, that's another story)

I even read from somebody that all what is wrong with an instance is that its users tend to be mildly annoying and that's a good reason to defederate the instance (witches.live/@anna/10948021759). Lovely. And that's how we want to become a better alternative to corporate social networks? Good luck boys and girls in the world! This way you only lose trust of us, the normal users of this network.

🤦‍♂️

Sincerely yours,

"Annoying reply guy"

@FailForward i have witches.live blocked for FUD mongering and just being awful to be around. So, nothing has changed. 💯

@piggo Well, I understand you run your own instance, so it's your personal choice. But if you do the same when you have thousands of users at your instance, you are effectively preventing ALL of them to interact with the other one. What right do you have to do that? I mean, if the rules clearly state that that you are the dictator there, I am fine with that. But most of the time it's not the case. And then 2 things happen:
1. you feel good about yourself because you won the game; and
2. your users end up shafted.

As a born guerrilla fighter, I see a potential for an uprising of users against admins here. :blobthinking:

@FailForward definitely, doing it instance wide if you have real userbase isn't right, that's why each user can do it separately on their own. just saying witches.live has bad vibe

@piggo that's why I welcome efforts like . I mean, it can be badly drafted, maybe executed, most likely it will fail, no problem with that, but eventually something in that direction sounds like a useful thing for the users.

@FailForward The more respect I have that there is even such a thing as an United Nations if you realize that many country's leaders are not too far off those childish admins here...

@FailForward

> This way you only lose trust of us, the normal users of this network

bye!

@FailForward I can recognise the normal users of this network, because they think the same way I do.

@wouldinotcallmyselfahumanbeing Good luck with that. But generally, a more useful heuristic (seems to me) would be to detect them by them clearly _not_ thinking the ways I consider harmful. Otherwise they are free to think as they wish - at least we can have a good argument then and life won't be boring.

@FailForward I can recognise the normal users of the network because they think the same things are harmful that i do.

@FailForward It's lucky that I happen to be the authority on what's harmful for all individuals in all instances then.

@wouldinotcallmyselfahumanbeing Well, we are all lucky to have you then!

P.S.
BTW, what's your consultancy services' hourly rate? Just so that we can budget approx how much the project of saving the world will cost 😉 .

@FailForward That would be entirely redundant. As a fellow normal user of the site, your authority on what is harmful is similarly the best-practice standard.

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Qoto Mastodon

QOTO: Question Others to Teach Ourselves
An inclusive, Academic Freedom, instance
All cultures welcome.
Hate speech and harassment strictly forbidden.