Just responded to someone on Reddit asking about setting up his own instance and wanting opinions on his "Rules". Part of the page that had the rules also has his intent to specifically instance block Gab right off the bat. No others, just Gab.
I stated that I thought getting very specific with rules was a slippery slope, later comparing it to the 3 wishes from a genie scenario.
I went on to suggest blocking Gab merely because he had heard "bad things" about them might be a bad idea. I went on to suggest he might just wait and see if he had problems and block then for reason, rather than rumor.
I went on to defend myself to someone that didn't like my use of "slippery slope" and other aspects of linguistic choosing. But, remembered that of the instances I have had problems on they were more likely to be "safe space" or "activist" rather than open general, with a free speech open bent. As well as the origins of problem persons also being from some of the more "woke" places. I have experienced far more in cw sexual imagery from anime persons than from persons on the big Japanese instance, and though I have had some suggestive stuff, none of it came from switter.
I then went on to State that unless those on your instance are following and or boosting stuff from an instance that might be objectionable you would be unlikely to see any.federated activity from that instance. Is my understanding of the way federation works accurate?
@Absinthe I think you did well, explained your reasoning, and even compared to your personal experiences in the past.
I would suggest that an administrator should have a look him/herself at any instances they consider potentially objectionable. I visited some front end pages for instances on gab's orbit, and was dismayed with what was being said and posted there.
Users do have the option of blocking not only a user, but a whole instance in their personal profile -- something I have done and documented here in the past, showing people screenshots and how to do it.
That is rich, that we can set our own limits.
There is a good article on Verge about what happened when the gab people realized tehy could use mastodon as their operating software, and so avoid their past bans for site specific apps -- for atrocious content and the impact on users who sometimes went on to commit criminal acts. The Verge article is here: https://www.theverge.com/2019/7/12/20691957/mastodon-decentralized-social-network-gab-migration-fediverse-app-blocking
AS long as they stay in their own very large instance (the largest atm, just over a million accounts listed), it's not a problem.
With the election in US coming closer and closer, that might change. If they went raiding into people's federated conversations and attempting to inhibit them (like it's common in Twitter), then the response from instances administrators would likely be much more active.
The next year is going to be a tough one, no matter the results.
The Atlantic had a recent issue, analyzing the situation and comparing it to what they saw in the US just before the Civil War got started.
Personally, I am not interested in their 'discourse' and prefer not to spend my time and energy in arguing.
@Absinthe There are differences on the way people see 'free speech'. Americans seem to think it allows all, including objectable, inane and offensive things.
People in other countries believe in more civilized behaviour, first of all. The right of one person to speak their mind should not infringe on another person's right to not being attacked, threatened or demeaned, in their own perspective.
I prefer speech that respects your listener, and does not hide under a constitutional amendment in force on a single country. The world is a big place, there are lots of perspectives, respect is a good way to learn and get along with others.
The attitude of the gun owners is also surprising to most people. The text of the second amendment is short and a bit obscure, some could read it as allowing for the formation and operation of militias, as a defence against possible tirany. Doesn't imply the right to carry an assault weapon into a commercial establishment, in some people's views.
No other country seems to have these extreme views on civilian arms, and neither the number of mass casualties from people in the country.
@design_RG thanks. Yeah, I keep Read ng all the articles I can find. I do enjoy the idea of the Fediverse. And I would like to see how well things work out with self moderation and such. But it seems that Free speech and Safe spaces are at odds with one another.
But some of the Free speech enthusiasts look to be trying to prove something? Like challenging someone to take it away. I see it like the 2A people that insist on slinging their ar15 to go into the local grocery store. They are making a statement I just don't quite know what it is. Just because you have the right to call me a disrespectful racial or cultural or scatalogical term doesn't mean you should, is the same way that just because you probably shouldn't doesn't mean somone should take your right to do so.