homo stultens @mediocreape@qoto.org

@voron @bicmay I think the c̶o̶n̶s̶e̶r̶v̶a̶t̶i̶v̶e̶ regressive platform asserting that the concept of "public health" is incompatible with liberty is probably a more root cause.

The stochastic nature of interconnection in contemporary 'globalised' 'culture' means there is no Good way to do things, only a commitment to continuous striving to do things less badly. As a starting point, rather than basing action on the assumption that you are correct, begin by assuming you are incorrect and reevaluate.

@aebrockwell @lxo @freemo The issue i have here is the painting of this group's moderation as inherently good due to an adherence to a ritual strucutre of centralised public documentation, another group's moderation as inherently ungood due to not adhering to that. It is a microcosmic example of the same mechanism by which western knowledge is reified as 'true' by mere virtue of being the product of western knowledge. However, based on the origin of the proposal in an academic instance, and the motto of said instance, this is practically inevitable.

@aebrockwell @lxo @freemo As a cooperative code toward moderation, it is an agreement that gardeners will not build walls within the walls of the larger garden.

@lxo Any moderation is a walled garden. he wall created is the same as any other moderated instance or meta-instance. Those who are judged to have 'knowingly violated the code of ethics' are placed outside the wall.

@freemo yet again, building walled garden with a transparent wall is a formal, rather than functional difference, regardless of enforcement.

I am reserving all judgement as to whether "your" or "their" walled garden is "better", so your arguments as to why it may be so aren't particularly relevant to this specific thread.

My sole contention is that, based on personal observation, your proposal attracts a degree of ridicule and pushback by virtue of appearing to claim to "solve" the problem of walled gardens by implementing the problem differently. My recommendation is as simple as it is impossible; relinquish the oppositional mindset. Let "them" talk however they will of you. The difference of experience within your garden will be the only rebuttal of theirs you ever need to make.

@freemo I think you misunderstand form versus function and are inadvertently arguing my case for me. I argue that the function of a walled garden is 'demarcate a space using a structure delimiting an enclosed inside and relative unenclosed outside'. The figurative windows and walls are indeed formal rather than functional, and holding the opinion that these formal addition make the garden more or less transparent according to what appears to be a 'publicly-accessible documentation' centric model of transpsparency do not change the essential walled garden.

yet another apology, I appear to have dropped the @freemo and @ufoi tags off my response. The training wheels remain a little longer it seems.

(end of thought-train, all change please, your patience appreciated)

There is nothing inherently right or wrong with promoting this proposition as a design for a better walled garden but positioning it as an alternative to walled gardens appears disingenuous.

apologies, this train of thought continues thusly...

Again, that appears a formal difference rather than a functional difference. There will be a garden, and there will be a wall around it.

@freemo @ufoi @freemo @ufoi The difference appears to me to be one of opinion rather than function. The result is still a clearly defined 'inside' and an 'outside'.

@freemo @ufoi Apologies, that's rather a large slab of text and the punctuation is questionable.

@freemo @ufoi I'm extremely new here but if one of the oft-repeated criticisms of what seems to be some kind of network of admins with a shared strategy of cooperative moderation that has gradually become quite large and influential (the name of which that I haven't yet clearly been able to identify - fedifence? fediblock?) is that it creates a walled garden and as such is anathema to the free and open principles of the fediverse, proposing a competing system of large coordinated cooperative moderation strategy but it's better because it's run how i like it not how they like it will likely result in an outcome that is not appreciably different.

@NerdyKeith@mstdn.social It might feel like a sysiphean task, but I'm glad you're doing it ❤️

@ZhiZhu @JuliusGoat This is a deliberate tactic: shifting the Overton Window. Getting people *used to thinking about* whether x-group of people should be abused and expelled is the initial purpose of insisting there is a discussion to be had.

@NerdyKeith@mstdn.social 'correcting' whoever these folk are implies they're doing it inadvertently. I suspect many who like the term toss this insult about because in most cases their views on the LGBTQ community are tied up with fundamental religious values and they genuinely consider any member of that community to be at best guilty of 'moral' perversion, and at worst *do* literally equate the two.