Blocking all content from #Threads is a personal choice. (Any #Mastodon user can block everything from any domain.)
Demanding that all content from Threads be blocked by all instances for everyone (defederation) is Karenism.
Justifying it by claiming it's a threat to your culture ... well, I've heard that argument before.
I think https://s.yelvington.com/@Steve's point is different: he's not criticizing marginalized people, but people who want to take away the individual choice of each person to decide whom they want to interact with.
There are not only bad people on #threads, and I want to be able to communicate with people on #threads of my choosing. I don't want somebody else deciding this for me.
@folkerschamel @steve Oh stop.
This is the line that gets passed around among the pro-federation-with-Facebook crowd, that #Fedipact is a violation of individual choice. That's bullshit. Not only are people still free to exercise their agency by switching instances, it's a goddamn lie to say that admins are joining the pact without input from their users or even against their wishes.
You are all fearmongering about being forced to switch instances. Yeah it's a PITA but you're not being violated. Like come the fuck on. Argue in good faith for a change!
And fashjacketing people whose PRIMARY concern is that Facebook does not moderate hate speech is offensive bullshit. None of your excuses make that particular lie remotely OK.
@folkerschamel @steve
"There are not only bad people on #threads
#StrawMan: nobody claimed that every Facebook/Instagram user is a bad person. The argument is that the company is evil and has evil policies and will do evil things based on a long history of doing evil things.
"and I want to be able to communicate with people on #threads of my choosing."
It is literally impossible for someone to take that choice away from you. Suppose Threads were to arrive in the Fediverse tomorrow. Worst case scenario: your admin defederates with them immediately and you have to migrate instances. You don't even have any pre-existing connections with them to lose. All your follows are ported. Stop fearmongering about this!
"I don't want somebody else deciding this for me."
Then you had better start your own instance!
@SallyStrange @folkerschamel @steve I am an admin of an instance. The members for the foundation that runs our instance voted. The members voted to block so we block.
And also, I think that the idea to push all moderation responsibility to the user is a bad idea. For people that don't get a lot of hate and death threats (like myself), it is quite easy to block some specific ass holes. But if you are a POC or lgbtq you will likely get way more and want admins to block more on instance level
By the way, did you consider adding #therads on the block list not for the whole instances, but just for the members who want that block?
Or even easier, instead of voting for the block, these people can just block the instance themselves anytime they want? Same number of clicks than voting.😉
The advantage would be that people who don't want to block #threads are not forced a block onto them against their will.
@folkerschamel @SallyStrange @steve No, we didn't. We think that a part of running an instance is maintaining a block list that makes the experience nice. There are a lot of shitty instances. It's enough that the admin teams have to handle them and block. We just block the worst. But a giant instance run by Meta? We say thanks but no thanks.
The awesome part with fedi is that people can migrate to other instances. The people that have accounts on our server know how we run things.
While I think that good content moderation is key, I just still don't understand the benefit or reason for instance level blocking or #fedipact when any user can simply just make their own choice by blocking whatever instance they want, leading to the same experience for that user without patronizing others.
But of course I support your feedom to run your instance as you want to. As you point out correctly, this is one of the awesome parts of the #fediverse.👍
@folkerschamel @SallyStrange @steve OK, so you don't see it as a tiny bit too much for marginalized people who have been hated on on their social media presence to have to themselves individually keep up with all the nazi shit sites and block those instances proactively as individual users? Or do you suggest that they wait for all death threats first to know who to block?
I get that if you have never encountered death threats on a daily basis (as a lot of people do), you might not see a problem
Well it’s an issue of no perfect solution, only trade-offs with downsides.
In this case the alternative is empowering somebody else to censor the content that you see.
Are they going to do a good job? Or are they going to censor things in ways that you don’t actually like? Or are they going to actually take advantage of that power that you are giving them to censor things in ways that intentionally manipulate you?
There are serious downsides to handing other people control over what you see, even if the motivation might be reasonable. It still takes a big risk.
@folkerschamel @volkris @samuel @steve "I just don't see it in this situation" therefore you're going to endorse accusing the people who do it of having fascist tendencies
The thing is, fascist regimes gained support of the people for reasons. It wasn’t just random.
When you start handing power to others to solve problems, well, it goes in that direction, and that is even in cases where you might think the trade-off is worth it.
When you hand people power to control what information you get, what you see, that is a bit dangerous even if you are personally willing to accept the danger.
@volkris @samuel @SallyStrange @steve
Yes.
And speaking in general terms, in many situations it's the right choice for me to delegate and hand over power to someone else. I just don't see it in this situation.