Just so you know, I'm not, and have never been, particularly concerned about #privacy or about companies harvesting my #data, or about targeted #ads. I know that a lot of people are on the #Fediverse explicitly to get away from those things, but that's not me.
I joined #Mastodon because for a long time -- long before Musk bought it -- I was becoming disillusioned with all the inane technical changes on Twitter since I joined 24 years ago. Changes designed to pander to the masses, while leaving technically-minded people like me behind. Changes like encouraging people to attach images to tweets, changes like algorithms highlighting tweets you should be interested in, changes like Quote Tweets.
I joined Mastodon because I was looking for something similar to the Twitter I fell in love with back in 2009, and I believe I found it. All I've ever wanted was an up-to-the-minute, blink-and-you'll-miss-it, algorithm-free, reverse-chronological timeline of my followees' tweets and retweets, and I found it in Mastodon.
That's why I'm here. Not because I have some sort of philosophical or religious objection to the likes of #Meta or #X or #Threads or #Facebook or anything like that, but simply because in Mastodon, I found the network I've been looking for for the past 24 years (and I'm becoming increasingly disillusioned with all Mastodon's changes which seem to be designed to pander to the masses and leave us technically-minded people in the lurch, but that's another story).
With that in mind, if Meta wants to join Threads to the Fediverse, I say go right ahead. The more the merrier! If #Bluesky wants to do the same, wonderful! If Elon ever wanted X to do the same (fat chance), I say come one, come all! The Fediverse is for everyone.
As long as they behave themselves. Hell, I'd be perfectly fine with Truth Social joining the Fediverse. As long as they behaved themselves. ;-)
🇵🇸 tze
@GrahamDowns I disagree. The #fediverse is not for everyone, it is for the people of the Fediverse. And the Fediverse has its own logic, which are incompatible with the quantitative logic of #Gafam The more it isn't the better in this context, on the contrary. Keeping the instances small and maintaining low traffic is better for the planet and for all who prefer quality to quantity. Less is more. Let's throw away #Threads of the #fediverse
@tze but now you're just talking about different user preferences.
You say less is more, and that reflects your own personal preferences, while many other users will say more is better because they have different prefaces than you. And there's no reason we can't develop this space to empower users to choose and get the experience they want from this same communication platform.
Also, by the way with the way the underlying network is designed here, it's much less efficient with many smaller instances then fewer large ones. That means more duplication of work, more overhead for communication, generally more resource consumption, if that's what you are interested in.
Finally I also just think it's notable that you seem to be referring to something of a centralization of platform policy, exactly the kind of thing Facebook and the others do to the detriment of users, and exactly the sort of thing that so many of us are here to get away from since here we don't need to be so centralized.
I'm on the fediblock list. So if someone blocks me because I'm on that list, who ratted me out? Whose orders are the fediblock troupe following, and what do those orders say?
Why, that would be me. I tagged the person maintaining the fediblock list a bunch of times telling them they're Nazi gestapo and they should add me to their censorship list lest they be called double plus ungood by me.
So essentially anyone who blocks my instance solely because I'm on that list is saying "oh, good catch! I AM a Nazi Gestapo and I'd hate to be called doubleplus ungood!"
I don't know what censorship you speak or what is the argument you hold. Everyone can do what they want, for example, call into question the bad idea that is to federate with #threads or discuss the subject. If you don't like it, you can always return to Instagram paradise, there they will understand you better, I suppose.
The threads thing tbh is the same mentality. A mob swirling about in a tempest in a teacup because meta's failed Twitter clone will join a fediverse that summarily either ignores them or spams them with stuff corpos definitely won't like. I see post after post after post, "defederate defederate defederate" often from people who have only been on the fediverse a month or two, they're just doing what's hip. People on sites like lemmy that'll probably not even properly federate are chanting like it's the most meaningful decision of their lives.
At the end of the day it's individual users decision who to block personally and individual admins decision who to block, and the great part of decentralization is that they can make that decision. But if you're just doing what someone else tells you to do you might as well be back on big tech. Think for yourself, make your own decisions, and at least you can stand by those decisions as manifestations of your own will instead of acting like a tool for someone else.
I'm sorry, but I don't see censorship anywhere. In fact, you are being able to say what you want and here nobody is censoring you. Therefore, that predicament is false.
Secondly, I have been in the #Fediverse since before #Mastodon appeared, so I don't know perfectly what I speak and the motivations of my argumentary.
Are you really serious when you hint that people invent the toxicity of the practices of the #Meta Corporation? Don't insult our intelligence, please! Does the case of Cambrige Analytica sound to you, for aiming one? There are no further questions, Your Honor.
It makes me funny that someone who defends the option to flood the Fediverse to the acritícal mass of the #GAFAM mainstream, sermonize us about what we think for ourselves. Thanks for advice that you do not apply to yourself.
@tze censorship is not merely the restriction on what someone can say but the blocking of those messages getting to audience.
Sounds to me like @sj_zero describes censorship pretty clearly.
Now, you might be in favor of that censorship, and that's fine. Plenty are. But if it's that important an issue then one might as well own that they are, in fact, censoring because they think it's just so important to block those messages.
Incorrect. Here the audience is aware of where she is and can move freely anywhere where she wants to listen or what she prefers. The fact is that a certain audience freely chooses not listening to certain sources that contribute zero to human dialogue. That is what you call censorship, I call it self -protection. If you want to drown in the shit of #Meta you are free to do it, go to #Instagram , #Facebook or #WhatsApp , but keep your shit away from the rest.
@tze oh good, I'm glad you see the censorship now.
Incorrect again.
"Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and expression. This right includes freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing, or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media OF ONE'S CHOICE." -- International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
@tze sure, and that quote gives a pretty bold stance against your call to censor expression on its way to the one who should have the choice, even if the owner of some instance thinks that censorship is a REALLY GOOD IDEA.
Again, you think censorship is worth it in this case. Great! That's a strong, principled stance to take. But take it, don't claim you're not doing what you're doing and not seeing what everyone else is free to see.
@tze you misunderstand if you think I have a moral problem here.
No at this point I'm just laughing about how hard you are fighting not to own up to what you were calling for.
Even when your own sources emphasize exactly what you are trying to do, you just won't say yes, this issue is so important to me that I believe it justifies censorship.
Do you think the threat from the other platforms is actually kind of low? The issue isn't actually important enough to justify censorship in this case?
The question is (following the arguments of @volkris ) if untagging is not censure too. 😂
Although I don't defend censorship in any way, I will not bother you again in this thread, no problem.
Taking your reasoning to the point that you have taken it, so the only way of avoid censorship is to force everyone to receive any communication for every node: a universal broadcasting. And censorship is good because it allows us to put filters into this cacophonic noise. Correct?
The world upside down.
@volkris
Try to apply reading understanding to the term "of your choice" and your moral problems will have been solved by magic.
@sj_zero @GrahamDowns