@sibrosan Thanks for the explanation!
thenexusofprivacy
joined 2 years ago
@sibrosan The server rules on your server explicitly prohibit transphobia.
So why do you see enforcing the rules by not federating with another server that's got a long history of transphobia as "bias"?
@sibrosan Like I say, opinions differ.
Why do you think so many trans and queer people -- who are very likely to be directly impacted by transgressions of the rules -- come to a different conclusion and advocate preemptively blocking?
See the "We're here, we're queer" section of https://privacy.thenexus.today/should-the-fediverse-welcome-surveillance-capitalism/#were-here-were-queer for more on that perspective.
@sibrosan Or, if an instance that's about to launch has a long history of discrimination, hate, violance, abuse, and contributions to genocide, you can announce your intention to defederate from them even before they launch.
Like I said in the post, opinions differ!
@Chimaera We can't stop Meta from doing what they want with the millions of Insta accounts, and we can't stop instances who want to work with Meta from working with Meta. We can however have a Meta-free region of the fediverse, and it's very likely to be better in a lot of ways than the Meta-friendly region.
Thanks @darnell , glad you like the analysis! I also think it's an opportunity as well as a threat, and I agree that right now it looks like most large instances won't block, and most of all I agree that we'll have to wait and see what happens!
@fancysandwiches when Darnell and I discussed this before he pointed to some things they've said that certainly might imply that -- although also might not (which is back to the wait and see). It's certainly true that somebody like Oprah would have an IT department capable of running it and would see the advantages of being able to do that. But we don't really know,
all they've said is "decentralized".
"Should the Fediverse welcome its new surveillance-capitalism overlords? Opinions differ!" ⬆️
has links to perspectives from @vantablack @Seirdy @fancysandwiches @alice @viennawriter @oblomov @mcp @fosstodon @darnell @PoliticaConC @tchambers @deadsuperhero @ianbetteridge @dangillmor @smallpatatas @gcrkrause and more ... like I say, opinions differ, but no matter where you are on it, I appreciate the time everybody's put into articulating their positions.
Thanks also @cendawanita @jo @edendestroyer @ophiocephalic @oliphant @admin1 and @damon for the feedback and discussions!
BTW in the last section when I'm discussing Mastodon's moderation issues, one of the things I mention is the lack of an ability to control who can reply to tweets ... so apologies in advance if this generates a bunch of notifications! I left the acknowedgments out of the main post to try to limit the damage, we'll see how well it works.
https://infosec.exchange/@thenexusofprivacy/110594384248698967
@ozoned cool, thanks very much! It's now at the start of the "don't tell people it's easy" section -- https://privacy.thenexus.today/kbin-lemmy-fediverse-learnings-from-mastodon/#its-not-easy
@ozoned exactly! I'm working on a revision, can I add this as a quote to the "Don't tell peole it's easy" section? You say it better than I did!
@daveley Great question. A rew reasons:
- mastodon.social's so big that the Local and Federated timelines aren't very useful.
- smaller instances (even if they're not special-interest focused) are more likely to have a good community.
- many other instances have "silenced" mastodon.social (because of its long history of moderation issues -- or just because of the volume), so people on other instances are less likely to connect with you.
All that being said, I wasn't trying to say that mastodon.social was terrible - it's the advice that's horrible. It's just that for most people it's not the best place to start.
@[email protected] @[email protected]