I gotta admit, I am loving how little of the conversation is just "BlueSky bad!
-
@stefan @evana @mastodonmigration yes, if this is a server feature and not a client one, then my concern goes away.
But I can 100% guarantee you that there is a small group of people that do this for very positive and supportive reasons that will be quite miffed if we do this (which just might be necessary!)
This is why I'm trying to find other ways of looking at this problem. I want to solve it! Just trying to find the right lever.
@scottjenson It just sounds like we might need to turn the conversation around and instead of asking how to mitigate this feature's potential for abuse, a better question might be, why is this useful?
If to limit a posts visibility, maybe using "quiet public" is a better option?
-
@scottjenson It just sounds like we might need to turn the conversation around and instead of asking how to mitigate this feature's potential for abuse, a better question might be, why is this useful?
If to limit a posts visibility, maybe using "quiet public" is a better option?
Just trying to imagine this playing out IRL. Someone pulls me to the side to talk to me, surrounds me with their buddies. Now, they might all be very nice people. But this situation just sounds inherently threatening.
-
Just trying to imagine this playing out IRL. Someone pulls me to the side to talk to me, surrounds me with their buddies. Now, they might all be very nice people. But this situation just sounds inherently threatening.
@stefan @evana @mastodonmigration These are indeed the harder questions to ask! I'm glad you're asking them
-
@stefan @evana @mastodonmigration yes, if this is a server feature and not a client one, then my concern goes away.
But I can 100% guarantee you that there is a small group of people that do this for very positive and supportive reasons that will be quite miffed if we do this (which just might be necessary!)
This is why I'm trying to find other ways of looking at this problem. I want to solve it! Just trying to find the right lever.
So the needs or desires of that small group of people who's getting miffed has higher priority than people receiving harm and threats?
-
So the needs or desires of that small group of people who's getting miffed has higher priority than people receiving harm and threats?
@tomjennings @stefan @evana @mastodonmigration
Of course not. I'm just saying I open source software has these arguments all the time and we need to be respectful of others
-
So the needs or desires of that small group of people who's getting miffed has higher priority than people receiving harm and threats?
@tomjennings @scottjenson @stefan @evana
Tom, don't think that was what Scott was saying. This is a brainstorming session. As such, all aspects of the matter are being put on the table. The first step is to identify the problem in all it's complexities. It's a long way from making any kind of priority calls or implementation decisions. Feel like it is important to assume everyone has good intentions to constructively address the issue at this point.
-
@evana @mastodonmigration @stefan Agree with your points but we're still circling around the issue of how likely this happens (and how)
I DONT want to imply I don't believe people that say it happens, I'm just trying to understand the broader flow, i.e. how can a Brigade operate in secrecy? It just seems very fragile as they likely do other things that get them banned. Have we seen a large scale brigade that worked this way for a while? What causes them to trip up? Let's focus on that.
@scottjenson @evana @mastodonmigration @stefan
> they likely do other things that get them banned
not necessarily? think of a messaging app that supports group messages. you create a group chat with your buddies and one other person. the person being added can:
- not accept the invite
- remove themselves from the group
- block people in the group
- report messages in the groupin the last scenario, mods do not have full context. the user has to attach any relevant context.
-
@scottjenson @evana @mastodonmigration @stefan
> they likely do other things that get them banned
not necessarily? think of a messaging app that supports group messages. you create a group chat with your buddies and one other person. the person being added can:
- not accept the invite
- remove themselves from the group
- block people in the group
- report messages in the groupin the last scenario, mods do not have full context. the user has to attach any relevant context.
@scottjenson @evana @mastodonmigration @stefan but because there is a private aspect, you would be free to act differently than you would otherwise act in public, and your only avenue for consequences would be *if* the added person reports y'all.
so the gap here is that people aren't being made aware that they can/should report such harassment. i don't think doing away with private posts solves anything.
one thing that could be done is to filter followers-only like mentioned-only, but...
-
@scottjenson @evana @mastodonmigration @stefan but because there is a private aspect, you would be free to act differently than you would otherwise act in public, and your only avenue for consequences would be *if* the added person reports y'all.
so the gap here is that people aren't being made aware that they can/should report such harassment. i don't think doing away with private posts solves anything.
one thing that could be done is to filter followers-only like mentioned-only, but...
@scottjenson @evana @mastodonmigration @stefan ...such a change might be unexpected if not communicated appropriately ahead-of-time. in effect, it would collapse the "public"/"followers"/"direct" into just "public"/"not public".
you'd probably also want the filter to be a bit smarter about what counts as "unsolicited", because even public mentions can be "unsolicited".
and of course i'd be remiss to leave out my usual advocacy for allowing people to create explicit contexts which they control!
-
@scottjenson @mastodonmigration @stefan followers-only posts require the *victim* to report the attack. Depending on the volume and ferocity of the harassment, the victim may not be in a position to do this (either due to harassment across several channels, or unawareness of reporting and moderation options).
As an example, I piled into this thread to help out with an example, but I wouldn't have seen it to help out if it were "followers only".
I can see the positive value in being able to restrict a discussion, but it seems like "all my friends plus one more" might be a dangerous model.
Take all this with a grain of salt, as I haven't actually been subject to this kind of abuse, and am privileged in a bunch of ways which probably shield me from having to consider the worst of it.
evana@hachyderm.io scottjenson@social.coop mastodonmigration@mastodon.online stefan@stefanbohacek.online would it help if selecting "followers only" didn't also include any mentioned people who are not followers? so mentions only are only shown the post and notified if you post publicly or if they are already following you.
-
@mastodonmigration But yes, that particular issue, I have not heard/seen any updates either.
@stefan @mastodonmigration @scottjenson @mekkaokereke
One option to prevent hidden abusive pile-on in the replies would be to allow only new posts to select a "privacy level". Every single reply in a thread or sub-thread should mandatorily inherit the "privacy level" of the parent post.
I wrote a thread elaborating on this argument.
Feral Thoughts (@feralthoughts@union.place)
🧵arguing that we should do away with “privacy level” options for reply posts (in case of Mastodon and Mastodon-like Fediverse platforms which follow that model), to eliminate the ability of racists to hide their abuse of black users behind “mentioned users only” replies. #Fediverse #Mastodon #PostPrivacy (continues)
The Union Place (union.place)
-
@juergen_hubert @ainmosni @IveyJanette @mekkaokereke
Here are some threads by @feralthoughts on the current issues with bringing in folks from the global south that I found very thoughtful and informative:
https://union.place/@feralthoughts/114030586394502623
https://union.place/@feralthoughts/114037639193329163@ricci @juergen_hubert @ainmosni @IveyJanette
This one is not on the "global south invisibility" problem, but I wrote a short thread suggesting that an option to prevent hidden abusive racist pile-on in the replies would be to allow only new posts to select a "privacy level". Every single reply in a thread or sub-thread should mandatorily inherit the "privacy level" of the parent post.
In case you are interested:
Feral Thoughts (@feralthoughts@union.place)
🧵arguing that we should do away with “privacy level” options for reply posts (in case of Mastodon and Mastodon-like Fediverse platforms which follow that model), to eliminate the ability of racists to hide their abuse of black users behind “mentioned users only” replies. #Fediverse #Mastodon #PostPrivacy (continues)
The Union Place (union.place)
-
evana@hachyderm.io scottjenson@social.coop mastodonmigration@mastodon.online stefan@stefanbohacek.online would it help if selecting "followers only" didn't also include any mentioned people who are not followers? so mentions only are only shown the post and notified if you post publicly or if they are already following you.
@mayel @evana @scottjenson @mastodonmigration @stefan It would only make it a little more difficult. The 'brigading' is now a two-step process for every participant.
The vector is really the 'followers-only' option. If we want to keep it, no way around sending a mandatory copy to a designated 'brigading moderator'.
-
I gotta admit, I am loving how little of the conversation is just "BlueSky bad! Mastodon good!
" and how much of it is "BlueSky is not ideal for Black users, but let's be for real, neither is Mastodon. We don't have control over BlueSky, but we do have some agency with Mastodon. How can we make Mastodon better? Where are we with improving the issues that make this place unwelcoming for Black users? Clearly, more Black users chose BlueSky than Mastodon. Have we addressed the reasons why?" 
️🥹Seriously, I count ~5 conversations in the improvement framing direction. I love to see it! Shame on me for having lower expectations.
I'm unapologetically backing improvements across ActivityPub and ATProto. I back Hachyderm/Mastodon and BlackSky. You can just back both teams! Nothing in the rules says you can't do that!
@mekkaokereke “I’m unapologetically backing improvements across […] ATProto” “You can just back both teams”
lets be real no you shouldn’t back a corpo project that acts purely to divide people and push a centroid & centralized ecosystem
I know i’m saying this to someone who talks about Mastodon as if it were the entire Fediverse and allegedly works for Google but dude no BS is not our friend here
-
@mekkaokereke “I’m unapologetically backing improvements across […] ATProto” “You can just back both teams”
lets be real no you shouldn’t back a corpo project that acts purely to divide people and push a centroid & centralized ecosystem
I know i’m saying this to someone who talks about Mastodon as if it were the entire Fediverse and allegedly works for Google but dude no BS is not our friend here
I said what I said.
People like you try to tell everyone that corpo vs open source is the line between good and evil. And you think yourself so clever for pointing out that "Mastodon is not the whole Fediverse."
But there is more CSAM on the Fediverse than on other social media, including BlueSky, and it's not close. There are more nazi instances on the Fediverse than on BlueSky, and it's not close. The Fediverse is less welcoming to Black people than either BlueSky or Twitter, and it's not close.
You prioritize anti-corp as most important, and that's fine for you. I define anti-racism and safety for Black people as mine. When the Fediverse is less dangerous for Black people than all the other social media, I'll encourage more people to come to it. Until that day, I'll work to make that true, and I'll tell people like you to pipe down when they try to pretend that the Fediverse today is some type of utopia, or even morally superior to BlueSky. It's not.
But it could be.
-
I said what I said.
People like you try to tell everyone that corpo vs open source is the line between good and evil. And you think yourself so clever for pointing out that "Mastodon is not the whole Fediverse."
But there is more CSAM on the Fediverse than on other social media, including BlueSky, and it's not close. There are more nazi instances on the Fediverse than on BlueSky, and it's not close. The Fediverse is less welcoming to Black people than either BlueSky or Twitter, and it's not close.
You prioritize anti-corp as most important, and that's fine for you. I define anti-racism and safety for Black people as mine. When the Fediverse is less dangerous for Black people than all the other social media, I'll encourage more people to come to it. Until that day, I'll work to make that true, and I'll tell people like you to pipe down when they try to pretend that the Fediverse today is some type of utopia, or even morally superior to BlueSky. It's not.
But it could be.
But there is more CSAM on the Fediverse than on other social media, including BlueSky, and it’s not close. There are more nazi instances on the Fediverse than on BlueSky, and it’s not close.
This only means anything if you’re on an unmoderated instance yourself. and even then, I figure it’s because BS has 200 times less instances in general…?
Mind you, I do think myself quite clever, and I do think the Fediverse is morally superior to the fascist-platforming BS, and I have good reasons for it.
The Fediverse is less welcoming to Black people than either BlueSky or Twitter
When you bring up X as more welcoming to any minority and more worth using than fedi I start to have trouble taking you seriously.
-
But there is more CSAM on the Fediverse than on other social media, including BlueSky, and it’s not close. There are more nazi instances on the Fediverse than on BlueSky, and it’s not close.
This only means anything if you’re on an unmoderated instance yourself. and even then, I figure it’s because BS has 200 times less instances in general…?
Mind you, I do think myself quite clever, and I do think the Fediverse is morally superior to the fascist-platforming BS, and I have good reasons for it.
The Fediverse is less welcoming to Black people than either BlueSky or Twitter
When you bring up X as more welcoming to any minority and more worth using than fedi I start to have trouble taking you seriously.
@mekkaokereke the very inherent factors that let nazis set up camp on the Fediverse work both ways. good people can hang out here on the fediverse without being interfered with by any state or corporation. and said good people can, and do fediblock the fuck out of the vocal minority of fash. I absolutely do not see how this is in any way worse for Black people than oligarch-controlled centralized spaces that range only from fascist to mediocrily centrist.
-
@mekkaokereke the very inherent factors that let nazis set up camp on the Fediverse work both ways. good people can hang out here on the fediverse without being interfered with by any state or corporation. and said good people can, and do fediblock the fuck out of the vocal minority of fash. I absolutely do not see how this is in any way worse for Black people than oligarch-controlled centralized spaces that range only from fascist to mediocrily centrist.
" I absolutely do not see how this is in any way worse for Black people than oligarch-controlled centralized spaces"
Which is the difference between me and you. Which is the difference between millions of Black people and you.
And you are not owed an explanation. Just go away before I block you.
And no, Black people can't exist here without being bothered unless they're on an unmoderated instance. For example, right now, I, a proud son of Africa, I'm being bothered by some weirdo with Zaire in their handle, that's trying to tell me how moderation works on the Fediverse.
