Mastodon is “censorship-free” but cancel any instance that has one right-wing moderator.
3 Likes
Being blocked by other people on social media is not actual censorship. Self-censoring (e.g. by quitting as admin of Fosstodon) is also not actual censorship.
Whether other instances accept publications from Fosstodon does not impact Fosstodon’s ability to publish information in any way, they can always do so independently of anyone else because Mastodon is an all-in-one software suite that does not rely on other parties to run.
By the way, this video is available in article form:
4 Likes
It is. The whole fosstodon instance was blocked because of an individual moderator views (which he didn’t even post on fosstodon). How is thousand of people being cutoff from other people (instances) not censorship ?
Also, it outlines a broader point that by and large, the Mastodon community is completely intolerant to diverging views. This guy didn’t say anything illegal (even under let’s say German anti-hate rules). Yet he was called a facist.
Self-censoring (e.g. by quitting as admin of Fosstodon) is also not actual censorship
Self-censorship (if that’s what you meant) is censorship. If your definition of censorship is limited to “taking down of content”, then it’s a misguided view. Most censorship is from people affraid to speak out, because of consequences. You can see this even in the US today with lawyers, companies, etc. bending the knee and often censoring their speech.
8 Likes
And they’re no more publicly accountable than the big tech social media platforms, arguably even less so.
2 Likes
By whom?
This is the key point. It is not possible for other servers to suppress Fosstodon’s ability to publish content. In fact I just opened Mastodon and only had to scroll down 5 posts to find one from their server, so Fosstodon is alive and well.
Self-censorship is mainly problematic if it is a product of external repression. When that does not exist, and you are self-censoring due to baseless fears, then no it is not an actual problem.
2 Likes
The main question here is “what is censorship”.
Social pressures will always occur; it is human nature. If I hop on 4Chan and say something that the users there disagree with, I might as well self-censor. Same if I go on a political subreddit or forum and comment something antithetical to the community members here.
Most conversations about the anti-censorship capabilities of platforms should instead focus on whether said information can survive in the long-term.
I’m not saying that I agree with the circumstances that led to the resignation of that Fosstodon’s admin. But ultimately speaking, I would be more concerned about how resistant these instances are to court orders and government intervention.
Community drama is, in my opinion, incredibly stupid. I hope that people can separate the actions of this specific community and the technical infrastructure of Mastodon. I don’t see any solution to this besides creating an instance with more likeminded community members.
The real test is whether an instance can survive being blocked by a country.
3 Likes
From the article above
Last week, I started receiving private messages from users warning me that my Mastodon instance, Fosstodon, had a fascist moderator. Thus, they were deciding to de-federate it and suggested I move elsewhere. I decided to wait a few days to see how this would play out.
It turns out that Fosstodon will probably close down. Both of the main owners of the instance have communicated that they are fed up with managing it and are stepping down. The crowd that was loudly asking to “cancel” Fosstodon has won, but were they right?
Maybe mastodon.social didn’t block them, but many other instances did - effectively ostracizing the platform-.
This is akin to saying you can have freedom of speech, but only on a remote island.
I actually didn’t bring up self-censorship in this context, because he didn’t censor himself, he actually didn’t and had to resign because of it (he could have let Fosstodon defederated by more instance and more people leave instead, but that isn’t a real choice.
This is whataboutism
This is understandable. Both are important, but I want to share awareness that Mastodon as a social network is censoring people. In theory it might be free, in practice it isn’t.
A bit off-topic:
Also, mastodon.social literally hides posts “right-wing talking points” → See Jonah Reply
On this post,
1 Like
Because the instance on its own can operate independently. Other instances may not want to do anything with your instance but you are still able to broadcast anything you want.
If you are in my group chat and I don’t like you, I can remove your access to the group chat but you are still welcome to express your views and opinions on your own group chat if you want. Removal of access in one way does not by default mean 100% censorship.
Yeah.. this I would kinda agree with. Mastodon by and large is heavily left wing. And discourse on opposing views cannot happen on there because even hinting it will get you obliterated. This is facts. No denying it as I have explained myself here. I have seen this happen many times.
That’s why using aliases is warranted.
1 Like
Yep. This is pretty much it too.
I think this thread and OPs post shows the natural issue and drawback of social media (centralized or not). There is peer pressured censorship which may and may not be considered it at the same time. And considering it or not depends on the person’s philosophical bend on how they look at censorship or self censorship.
But because Mastodon is decentralized, there can always be even more fragmentation with the social media platform if more right wingers want to join and have their own instances like people on the left (or the majority as it currently stands). Each instance/server can have their own rules and what have you. That can be seen as the beauty and a curse of the software and decentralized nature of it - if one really want to see it that way.
In the end, everyone is still free to express and associate with whom and what they want. So, freedom still exists if you ask me. With all I said, I don’t think I am factually incorrect. Please let me know otherwise.
2 Likes
This is the author of those posts choosing to hide their post content behind a warning.
Yes. In fact, being judged by your social peers is in fact them exercising their own free speech. If there were some form of punishment or control over who instances were allowed to moderate, that would be its own form of censorship in itself.
In the real world, since the US was brought up earlier, this is seen lately where the government defunds or otherwise controls universities in response to reported/surveyed “self-censorship” among (right-wing?) students. We should be careful to not address self-censorship issues with actual censorship, as is often proposed.
3 Likes
Non critical thinkers will always conflate the two and make this their own talking point even though it makes little sense.
This is an oversimplification of the actual situation.
It is. What?
If each member of your group blocks an individual on their own, that is not censorship.
If you are in a position of authority that goes beyond just one person, like a moderator banning someone, that is censorship.
Also from the linked thread, the moderator in question was also a moderator of r/privacy and has been censoring left-wing posts.
2 Likes
Not censorship because no one is still stopping from from sharing your views elsewhere.
Private entities can do what they want. Censorship is often thought of from a legal POV only.
1 Like
I find it sad that we would have a left-mastodon and a right-mastodon. Social networks are supposed to foster healthy debate in a society. Instead, we chose to create our own bubbles. Much has been said about Big Tech fostering this division, but it seems FOSS isn’t immune to this.
[quote=“anon88979181, post:9, topic:27152”]
Because the i
I really think we should aim for something better than removing based on liking. I think if we take a real-world example it is better. Let say a country called Fedistan has three cities: Freeland, Discussland, and Progressland. I am someone in Freeland, and I have recently criticised ideas that the Progressland people really care about. I then want to give a conference in Progressland, but I am barred from entry, even though my conference had nothing to do with those ideas I criticised, it was about a new invention I made.
Would you (and that’s really an open question) consider the move from the Progressland authorities justified ?
3 Likes
Me too. But your view expresses the naivete that today’s reality will chew and spit out. I wish it were not this way but alas, is.
Human nature and understanding still does not transcend this basic nature of rational and pragmatic discourse given today’s stark polarization with everyone’s worldview.
–
I get all of what you’re saying and wish it weren’t this way - but it will end up being this way no matter, in time.
But it is censorship. And yes, they are allowed to censor you, it doesn’t change the fact that it is censorship.
1 Like
This would bring back what @KevPham said in his comment. It would depend on how to define it and how we all collectively think of what is and what isn’t censorship.
Unless we agree on one single understanding of it, this discussion is moot.
I disagree with the censorship of Mastodon, but yeah it is their right to censor and I don’t want any law to punish them. As you said before, they couldn’t be any form of control of instances by Mastodon unless the majority of instances agreed.
I personally never said moderation was bad, but moderation should be on a set of clear guidelines and enforce objectively.
This is just an excuse used by the Trump administration. The US (Alt-) Right never cared about Free Speech, they only cared about their free speech. See here and to a lesser exten this
1 Like
Not whataboutism. I’m not saying that these examples were bad; rather, they demonstrate how human social groups function. Kind of like a “well what do you expect by doing this in a space predominately consisting of XYZ?”.
Community makeup is incredibly important. To ensure that all voices are heard, a community dedicated to neutrality will need to ironically censor their users more to prevent inflammatory messages. That leads to whether targeted censorship should apply to rowdy community members that call for admin resignations or if free speech absolutism should remain the policy of the day.
Now, we can go around and try to imagine an ideal group where everyone can respectfully comment their beliefs. Not happening 9/10. But, we can create separate instances where these groups can function but not be at risk of being taken down by an authoritarian government. Some may call this polarization or unfair for folks who want to join a larger instance, but I think as long as these spaces are allowed to function in the first place, then Mastodon has done its job.
I think the membership of Mastodon leans more towards the “alternative” side of things. These type of folks tend to be very passionate about certain beliefs. Despite this, there is a lot of potential for retaining the longevity of instances that would otherwise be long dead.
The beauty of Mastodon is that you have full control over what you see. I know that healthy debate is very important to you (and it is important to me!) but in this day and age, the digital public square can never really exist because of outrage culture on both sides.
Maybe someone can create an instance dedicated to that idea where folks can join willingly. But at the end of the day, you can’t force people to view content that they do not want to see. That is seen in both the left and right.
Trust me, I tried doing a similar thing back in the day…in the spirit of bipartisanship. It failed because what one side views as fascism is what others view as normal. Or what one side views as debauchery is what others view as human nature.
I think what would make Mastodon better would be a spirit of “respect” towards other groups. A cemented respect for the instances’ individual rules, but understanding that the very nature of Mastodon entails keeping individual communities alive regardless of political beliefs.
2 Likes
I really, really feel strongly that this distinction doesn’t make sense. When Facebook suspended Cambridge Analytica whistleblower account and The Guardian from Facebook just because they unveiled how Facebook contributed to massive election manipulation, isn’t that censorship?
Also, the fact that you can go somewhere else doesn’t mean there is no censorship. If Google were to remove every bad article of politician A from search results, wouldn’t that be a case of massive censorship ?
1 Like