# The Fosstodon Drama tells us a bigger problem about Mastodon **URL:** https://discuss.privacyguides.net/t/the-fosstodon-drama-tells-us-a-bigger-problem-about-mastodon/27152 **Category:** Off Topic **Created:** 2025-04-29T17:19:08Z **Posts:** 66 ## Post 1 by @anon80779245 — 2025-04-29T17:19:08Z > **[The Fosstodon Drama tells us a bigger problem about Mastodon](https://www.youtube.com/watch?si=lyMc9zsC3Iw1YyPd&v=ywAmBVxNqbk&feature=youtu.be)** > > You can find all of these videos as written articles, plus some extra content, at https://thelibre.newsYou can the channel grow by donating to the following ... Mastodon is “censorship-free” but cancel any instance that has one right-wing moderator. --- ## Post 2 by @jonah — 2025-04-29T17:38:09Z 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: > **[Fosstodon's drama reveals a much deeper Mastodon problem](https://thelibre.news/fosstodons-drama-reveals-a-much-deeper-mastodon-problem/)** > > We should be a bit more careful in how we structure the federated internet. --- ## Post 3 by @anon80779245 — 2025-04-29T17:46:23Z > [@jonah](#): > > 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. 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. --- ## Post 4 by @phnx — 2025-04-29T17:56:20Z And they’re no more publicly accountable than the big tech social media platforms, arguably even less so. --- ## Post 5 by @jonah — 2025-04-29T17:57:44Z > [@anon80779245](#): > > was blocked **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. --- ## Post 6 by @KevPham — 2025-04-29T18:21:41Z 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. --- ## Post 7 by @anon80779245 — 2025-04-29T18:28:47Z > [@jonah](#): > > **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. 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-. > [@jonah](#): > > This is the key point. **It is not possible for other servers to suppress Fosstodon’s ability to publish content.** This is akin to saying you can have freedom of speech, but only on a remote island. > [@jonah](#): > > 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. 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. > [@KevPham](#): > > 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. This is whataboutism > [@KevPham](#): > > 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. 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](https://mastodon.social/@lo__/114370692797365997), ![screenshot-mastodon-right-hiding](//forum-uploads.privacyguidesusercontent.com/original/2X/5/52be94357c1a9e7f55f0e1b09393969d4782f732.png) --- ## Post 9 by @anon88979181 — 2025-04-29T18:42:51Z > [@anon80779245](#): > > How is thousand of people being cutoff from other people (instances) not censorship ? 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. > [@anon80779245](#): > > the Mastodon community is completely intolerant to diverging views. 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. > [@anon80779245](#): > > Most censorship is from people affraid to speak out, because of consequences. That’s why using aliases is warranted. --- ## Post 10 by @anon88979181 — 2025-04-29T18:49:19Z 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. --- ## Post 11 by @jonah — 2025-04-29T19:09:44Z > [@anon80779245](#): > > Also, mastodon.social literally hides posts “right-wing talking points”. This is the author of those posts choosing to hide their post content behind a warning. > [@anon88979181](#): > > 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. 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. --- ## Post 12 by @anon88979181 — 2025-04-29T19:12:57Z > [@jonah](#): > > We should be careful to not address self-censorship issues with actual censorship, as is often proposed. Non critical thinkers will always conflate the two and make this their own talking point even though it makes little sense. --- ## Post 13 by @anon99163603 — 2025-04-29T19:17:18Z > [@jonah](#): > > Being blocked by other people on social media is not _actual_ censorship This is an oversimplification of the actual situation. > [@anon88979181](#): > > 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 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](https://lemm.ee/post/60365167), the moderator in question was also a moderator of r/privacy and has been censoring left-wing posts. --- ## Post 14 by @anon88979181 — 2025-04-29T19:19:51Z > [@anon99163603](#): > > If you are in a position of authority that goes beyond just one person, like a moderator banning someone, that is censorship. 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. --- ## Post 15 by @anon80779245 — 2025-04-29T19:21:58Z > [@anon88979181](#): > > 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. 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 > [@anon88979181](#): > > 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. 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 ? --- ## Post 17 by @anon88979181 — 2025-04-29T19:26:06Z > [@anon80779245](#): > > 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.** 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. > [@anon80779245](#): > > I really think we should aim for something better than removing based on liking. 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. --- ## Post 18 by @anon99163603 — 2025-04-29T19:26:59Z > [@anon88979181](#): > > Private entities can do what they want. Censorship is often thought of from a legal POV only. But it is censorship. And yes, they are allowed to censor you, it doesn’t change the fact that it is censorship. > [@anon88979181](#): > > Not censorship because no one is still stopping from from sharing your views elsewhere. > [@anon80779245](#): > > This is akin to saying you can have freedom of speech, but only on a remote island. --- ## Post 19 by @anon88979181 — 2025-04-29T19:27:33Z > [@anon99163603](#): > > that is censorship 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. --- ## Post 20 by @anon80779245 — 2025-04-29T19:31:02Z > [@jonah](#): > > 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. 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. > [@jonah](#): > > 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. 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](https://www.newsweek.com/abortion-rights-floridians-protecting-freedom-sues-censorship-1970163) and to a lesser exten [this](https://archive.is/Yrgf9) --- ## Post 21 by @KevPham — 2025-04-29T19:33:12Z 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. > [@anon80779245](#): > > 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. 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. --- ## Post 22 by @anon80779245 — 2025-04-29T19:37:37Z > [@anon88979181](#): > > 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 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 ? --- ## Post 23 by @anon88979181 — 2025-04-29T19:37:45Z Just because another doesn’t want to hear or listen to what you have or want to say continuously or stand for - doesn’t mean they are censoring you at large. --- ## Post 24 by @anon88979181 — 2025-04-29T19:39:10Z I’ll refer you back to my previous comment: > [@The Fosstodon Drama tells us a bigger problem about Mastodon](https://discuss.privacyguides.net/t/the-fosstodon-drama-tells-us-a-bigger-problem-about-mastodon/27152/14): > > 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. --- ## Post 25 by @jonah — 2025-04-29T19:46:31Z > [@anon80779245](#): > > I personally never said moderation was bad, but moderation should be on a set of clear guidelines and enforce objectively. At the end of the day, I have not seen evidence to suggest that this is not the case on Mastodon. There are probably some outliers, but as far as I know most users of the instances which have suspended or silenced Fosstodon agree with the decision to do so, and I gather that is usually the case in situations like this. The outrage often comes from those on the other end, who shouldn’t get a say in how their speech is received by others: It is unsurprising to me that _Fosstodon users_ may be surprised they are being moderated by other instances. I think people have an incomplete mental model of how the fediverse works. Traditional social media platforms have trained people to view services as monoliths where they either have access or they do not. When services that have monopolized _access_ to information block users, that is a form of problematic censorship. There is no way to access content on Facebook without using Facebook. On the other hand, when it comes to Mastodon it doesn’t make sense to blame defederation on the service, it is a choice that is being made by other communities of people. Mastodon simply represents a return to form for the internet, which inherently doesn’t discriminate. There are still a plethora of means to access content published by Fosstodon users. They aren’t on a remote island, they’re just another storefront in a shopping mall, and no matter how much a _different_ storefront doesn’t like them or tells their visitors how shitty Fosstodon is, their access to the mall itself (the internet) hasn’t been hampered. --- ## Post 26 by @anon99163603 — 2025-04-29T19:51:24Z > [@anon88979181](#): > > Just because another doesn’t want to hear or listen to what you have or want to say continuously or stand for - doesn’t mean they are censoring you at large. Hmm? Why does it sounds like you are agreeing with me? Again, IMO, individuals blocking each other is not censorship. Censorship is when someone block someone else aside from themselves from viewing something (when you are deciding for others basically). > [@anon88979181](#): > > It would depend on how to define it and how we all collectively think of what is and what isn’t censorship. But your definition doesn’t make sense to me. Private entities are not censoring because they can do whatever? Does that imply that only the government (public) can censor? In any case, I’m saving up for an island now to exercise free speech. --- ## Post 27 by @anon88979181 — 2025-04-29T19:57:36Z > [@anon99163603](#): > > Censorship is when someone block someone else aside from themselves from viewing something (when you are deciding for others basically). For example: no right winger is going to block you from accessing their views/comments. They may block you from saying anything against it but you still have the freedom to say things against them on your own platform/instance/server/forum/etc. I still don’t buy about what you mean by censorship > [@anon99163603](#): > > Censorship is when someone block someone else aside from themselves from viewing something (when you are deciding for others basically). – > [@anon99163603](#): > > Private entities are not censoring because they can do whatever? Does that imply that only the government (public) can censor? There’s a larger definition and understanding of what censorship is here or anywhere you discuss it. Like I said in my comments earlier, if I block you or you block me from saying something - sure, you or I may consider censorship but only from that particular group and manner. It does not mean I or you are not capable or disallowed to express yourself outside of it. You can still do that. Again, private groups/instances/servers/etc. can block whom they want - it all depends on if you have this narrow of a definition of it you have or think about it more broadly. --- ## Post 28 by @anon80779245 — 2025-04-29T20:11:25Z > [@KevPham](#): > > 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. This really isn’t about free-speech absolutism. I didn’t said a mastodon instance should allow posts from instances that have loser rules than them. This is a case where some (I would like to know how much, but Idk if there is any public data on this) instances banned another one on the mere fact that they had one single moderator who had right-wing views (which they apparently called fascist) and fosstodon wouldn’t fire him because he did nothing wrong on their platform,. I also think there is a difference between communities - which are tailored to a specific group- and social networks which have a broader appeal. > [@KevPham](#): > > 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?”. All Fosstodon moderation decisions were based on a objective process, and he never did anything contrary to fosstodon rules and guidelines. > [@KevPham](#): > > 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. I think that’s more true of Bluesky :wink: , where they would label - not remove- content that some might find inappropriate. You can then choose whether you want to see it or now. > [@KevPham](#): > > 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. To be fair, I don’t live in the US so it’s a bit easier for me to look at US politics without too much emotions. I think that it is important that our news sources be as fact-based as possible and that our social media try to show as little bias as possible. This doesn’t mean then that I will be neutral. I definitely am not, and have many strong opinion on many topics. But at least my beliefs are (somewhat) shaped from ground-truths. This isn’t possible if we just give up talking to the other side and accept to lock down ourselves in echo chambers that reinforce views with [confirmation bias](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias) --- ## Post 29 by @anon80779245 — 2025-04-29T20:13:55Z > [@jonah](#): > > At the end of the day, I have not seen evidence to suggest that this is not the case on Mastodon. There are probably some outliers, but as far as I know most users of the instances which have suspended or silenced Fosstodon agree with the decision to do so, and I gather that is usually the case in situations like this. The outrage often comes from those on the other end, who shouldn’t get a say in how their speech is received by others: Maybe I am missing something here. How is banning another instance based on their internal functionning - and not the posts they allow- objective moderation ? --- ## Post 30 by @anon88979181 — 2025-04-29T20:15:16Z From one instances’ POV, it is. From another, it certainly must not seem so. --- ## Post 31 by @anon80779245 — 2025-04-29T20:18:51Z > [@jonah](#): > > When services that have monopolized _access_ to information block users, that is a form of problematic censorship. There is no way to access content on Facebook without using Facebook. On the other hand, when it comes to Mastodon it doesn’t make sense to blame defederation on the service, it is a choice that is being made by other communities of people. Per your logic, any banned users on Facebook can just create their own blog and that’s fine > [@jonah](#): > > On the other hand, when it comes to Mastodon it doesn’t make sense to blame defederation on the service, it is a choice that is being made by other communities of people. I would disagree those instances are actually run in a democratic manner. It’s often the mods and a few active members who make the decision for the rest.(Could be wrong, please prove me otherwise) --- ## Post 32 by @anon88979181 — 2025-04-29T20:21:02Z > [@anon80779245](#): > > I would disagree those instances are actually run in a democratic manner. Instance runners have no obligation to account for what their users want - they sign up for it knowing full well select instance runners will make the final calls on things. If you don’t like it, make your own and communicate with the larger fediverse. --- ## Post 33 by @anon80779245 — 2025-04-29T20:23:43Z Anyway, I will leave it here for today. I understand some don’t think it’s censorship and that’s totally fine. Hope I didn’t do Gish-Galop by overloading --- ## Post 34 by @anon99163603 — 2025-04-29T20:25:11Z > [@anon88979181](#): > > For example: no right winger is going to block you from accessing their views/comments. They may block you from saying anything against it but you still have the freedom to say things against them on your own platform/instance/server/forum/etc. I still don’t buy about what you mean by censorship I would still consider it censorship if that happen in a place where others can comment on (as opposed to a read-only blog). But let’s agree to disagree, this has gone off-topic. --- ## Post 35 by @jonah — 2025-04-29T20:29:59Z > [@anon80779245](#): > > Per your logic, any banned users on Facebook can just create their own blog and that’s fine When it comes to Facebook and other “Web 2.0” social media platforms, they attempted to supplant the internet and become their own “shopping mall” where they control every aspect of your interaction. This is where censorship attempts by Big Tech platforms became much more problematic than they otherwise would be, because they attempted to give themselves psuedo-governmental power over the internet at large, and use that power to control what people view. My entire point is that Mastodon does not do this (nor aims to do this), and exists within a larger ecosystem where many platforms are on a level playing field. Facebook and Mastodon are **fundamentally different** platforms, so comparing Facebook moderation to Mastodon moderation is not a fair comparison, which is again the point I’ve been making this whole time. > [@anon80779245](#): > > I think that’s more true of Bluesky :wink: , where they would label - not remove- content that some might find inappropriate. You can then choose whether you want to see it or now. I do agree _in theory_, but in practice Bluesky unfortunately requires the use of centralized relay servers (and clients to some extent) **which can censor content on their own** , independently of how these labeling services moderate content. If labeling services were the _only_ form of moderation on Bluesky, and anyone could host their own relay and web interface for Bluesky and federate, it might be a better form of social media than Mastodon, but the _reality_ is that currently if you want a social media platform that you control end to end (from the publishing stage to the web interface stage where people can view said content), Mastodon is the best solution. > [@anon80779245](#): > > How is banning another instance based on their internal functionning - and not the posts they allow- objective moderation ? Just depends on that instance’s rules. If they are consistently applied then their users can reasonably expect it when it happens, and arguably those users agree/support that moderation implicitly. Users choosing to use a moderated platform is not a problem, because some people would _prefer_ those actions be outsourced to someone else, which is their perogative I suppose. --- ## Post 36 by @overdrawn98901 — 2025-04-30T03:46:00Z Censorship is in the eye of the beholder? lol. > [@jonah](#): > > Users choosing to use a moderated platform is not a problem, because some people would _prefer_ those actions be outsourced to someone else, which is their perogative I suppose. This sums it up pretty much. In this case, mods have powers to block information on behalf of users. But that also applies to this forum as well. Censorship to freedom of speech is a bit of a sliding scale with respect to certain entities. With respect to the server, sure maybe it’s a form censorship that users put faith in their admin and are upset if some actions seem unjustly taken. But with respect to the internet, they can join another server and spout the same information, so it’s not censorship as in it restricts any freedoms in their daily life. I can also see why some may be upset - if this is an online community, then blanket banning another nearby digital town seems pretty intense. Suppose it’s a bit philosophical too, and I’d generally prefer a platform that let me choose who to block individually, and have moderation keep things civil (and legal) with everyone playing nicely. This leads to a problem I have with federated instances, is the lot of even more drama I don’t care about. Not only do mods manage their own community, but are now managing their interactions with other mods in other communities, and now we have federated squabbles on hearsay whatever nonsense that happens. --- ## Post 37 by @mangomango — 2025-04-30T06:21:03Z > [@anon80779245](#): > > Per your logic, any banned users on Facebook can just create their own blog and that’s fine That is not realistic. The problem with Facebook domination : creating a blog wouldn’t even be useful because social media communications are dominated/oligopolized by big tech’s centralized social medias. With the fediverse, the user can speak on whatever platform he wants (if he accepts the rules). And I bet all users can find an adapted server. He does not have to create a blog. --- ## Post 38 by @anon80779245 — 2025-04-30T08:57:16Z Hi everyone I think I made a mistake and I am sorry about it. I said that Fosstodon was banned by other instances. This was based on ‘Nicco Love Linux’ saying it had been defederated. Turns out it isn’t banned by other instance, as I couldn’t find even one instance where it was banned. Was it banned in the past, between the “relevations” that there was a “nazi” mod and now? Who knows. But there is little evidence it was. ( I am sorry about that, I will fact-check first before. Edit: All I could find is that they were threats to defederate. [Fediverse Report – #114 – The Fediverse Report](https://fediversereport.com/fediverse-report-114/) --- ## Post 39 by @securitybrahh — 2025-04-30T17:52:40Z Mostodon suffers from the “Admin-in-the-middle” problem. > **[XMPP: Admin-in-the-middle · InfoSec Handbook – your friendly and open-minded...](https://web.archive.org/web/20211215132539/https://infosec-handbook.eu/articles/xmpp-aitm/)** > > XMPP isn't privacy-friendly if you don't control the server. --- ## Post 40 by @pika — 2025-05-09T05:35:19Z Can anyone tell me tldr for this ? My account is on the fosstodon server, and using it for long time now. Do i need to move to another server. I saw that a new admin have come now. Not sure if it should really affect me that much. :thinking: If yes suggest any other server pls. --- ## Post 41 by @pinkandwhite — 2025-05-09T06:26:50Z rightwinger moderator got pissy he got called rightwing, instances started threatening to defederate or defederating fosstodon, rightwinger resigned, some other moderator shuffling happened, don’t think people are still wanting to defederate as widely --- ## Post 42 by @anon80779245 — 2025-05-09T15:06:21Z > [@pinkandwhite](#): > > rightwinger moderator got pissy he got called rightwing They called him a [nazi](https://coreysnipes.com/thoughts-on-fosstodon.html), that’s why he got mad. @pika check out article in the sentence above, it explains it a bit > [@pinkandwhite](#): > > some other moderator shuffling happened the two admins resigned, in part [because of harasment](https://hub.fosstodon.org/fosstodon-community-statement) ,also see [here](https://fosstodon.org/@YKantRachelRead@treehouse.systems/114468301702713993) * * * --- ## Post 43 by @asanyan — 2025-05-09T15:29:26Z > [@KevPham](#): > > The beauty of Mastodon is that you have full control over what you see If your instance of choice has “hard blacklisted”/defederated another instance, you can’t see or interact with said instance at all. And if you choose to join a instance that refuses to defederate from any other instance, chances are that said instance is heavily defederated from other popular instances unless it’s very small or you selfhost it yourself. I don’t really bother with mastodon precisely for these reasons, it’s very hard to have actual control, and it’s very easy to get arbitrarily locked out of the ecosystem. Doesn’t matter if you want to call this censorship or not, fact is that there isn’t really a lot of freedom with mastodon, pleroma etc, due to how the fediverse has been structured. It’s better than traditional centralized social media but that’s not a very high bar. --- ## Post 45 by @overdrawn98901 — 2025-05-10T15:20:21Z Without source material it’s he-said she-said from the point of view of anyone reading this. Having articles break down what happened without linking to what was actually said comes off as tabloidy, regardless of right or wrong. As it pertains to this discussion, the maintenance of federation from a users perspective boils down to deciding what flavor of admin they need to trust and deal with, and “turf wars” on idealogy of admins between instances as to not get cut off from others. It’s social media, but hiring middle managers to play politics. > [@asanyan](#): > > that there isn’t really a lot of freedom with mastodon, pleroma etc What freedom is lost? You’re free to hop instances if you don’t like the admins. You’re free to stop using it if you don’t like it. You’re free to join de-federated instances if you like. It’s basically sub reddits that are containerized, but you can hop containerizations. You are always subject to some admin, but you have the freedom to choose which admin you want, which is pretty good. --- ## Post 47 by @phnx — 2025-05-10T16:08:43Z This really isn’t the place to argue about the circumstances leading up to the Fosstodon Drama. Please remain civil and on-topic or this topic will be closed. --- ## Post 48 by @Breeze7846 — 2025-05-10T18:50:26Z I really cannot believe this conversation has gone on this long. > **[Free Speech](https://xkcd.com/1357/)** That is really all there is to it --- ## Post 49 by @anon80779245 — 2025-05-10T19:39:42Z That’s really missing the point. When X censors post, it is censorship. Just because it wasn’t ordered by the government doesn’t it is less censorship.When Facebook bans [whistleblower](https://globalnews.ca/news/4093822/facebook-data-whistleblower-christopher-wylie-blacklisted/) it is also censorship. Now this doesn’t mean we should outlaw this, Facebook has the free-speech right to ban certain POVs or individuals (editorial discretion). But it is still a problem. Now the context of Fosstodon is different, but I still believe that 1% effectively decided that standard rules&procedures weren’t to be followed and launched what can be at best described as an aggressive pressure campaign on an independent instance. --- ## Post 50 by @win11.shading291 — 2025-05-12T23:10:44Z Ok, if there’s a rule on a social media that says, don’t say cow. And you go ahead and say cow. And you get banned. Would you call that censorship? Because it clearly isn’t. Some people would yell out of their lungs free speech, first amendment and censorship screaming, but it clearly is none of those. The XKCD sums it up perfectly. Even if you could make the semantic argument about what the word ‘censorship’ mean, doesn’t mean that that argument should be done. --- ## Post 51 by @anon99163603 — 2025-05-13T03:44:30Z > [@win11.shading291](#): > > Ok, if there’s a rule on a social media that says, don’t say cow. > > And you go ahead and say cow. And you get banned. Would you call that censorship? Yes. I assume you think that removal due to a rule violation is not censorship? Well, I think it is. > [@win11.shading291](#): > > Even if you could make the semantic argument about what the word ‘censorship’ mean, doesn’t mean that that argument should be done. How would you define censorship? --- ## Post 52 by @overdrawn98901 — 2025-05-13T11:34:28Z I feel like we are bike shedding the word censorship, and it’s not that productive. Imagine you walk into someone’s home. They say they don’t want any kerfuffle, and you decide to act out. The owner kicks you out of their house. You could say you are being “censored” in “their house” and you weren’t causing a kerfuffle really, or as most people would say, their house their rules. Even if they are “wrong”, it’s still their home. If you think it’s outlandish, **don’t go to their house**. If you want to play by your own rules, host your own party at your own place, but don’t be surprised if not all the neighbors decide to not go if you invited their enemies, even if they did nothing wrong. For Mastadon, **you don’t own the server, you are a guest of the server**. Owners of the server decide who stays and who goes by whatever rules they want. If you don’t like the rules, don’t join. If you want to play by your own rules, run your own server, and it’s federated so you can do that. You have more freedom on Mastadon than if a centralized server bans you. There is likely a sliding scale to severity and impact of censorship, but I see Mastadon cases on the lower end. Getting banned on a centralized service with no alternative sucks, as it means you’ve permanently lost connections if you’ve remained pseudoanonymous. --- ## Post 53 by @lyricism — 2025-05-13T11:50:17Z > Ok, if there’s a rule on a social media that says, don’t say cow. > > And you go ahead and say cow. And you get banned. Would you call that censorship? Because it clearly isn’t. _Ok, if there’s a law in society that says, don’t say cow._ _And you go ahead and say cow. And you get fined by the government. Would you call that censorship?_ It clearly **is** censorship whether it’s done by the government or private parties, as the act of censorship does not depend on the government being the one doing it. Censorship is not inherently bad, you can even self-censor in ways. The important question is whether it violates your rights. You should have a right to not be censored by the government. I don’t know that you should necessarily have a right to not be censored by private parties on their platforms, but that is where the argument lies. Debating the nature of an act like this being censorship is a red herring, it obviously is, and only distracts from getting to the core of the issue. --- ## Post 54 by @anon99163603 — 2025-05-13T11:54:59Z > [@overdrawn98901](#): > > it’s not that productive Yes, but I still don’t understand how you guys define censorship. > [@overdrawn98901](#): > > You could say you are being “censored” in “their house” and you weren’t causing a kerfuffle really, or as most people would say, their house their rules. Even if they are “wrong”, it’s still their home. It is their home, they are not wrong. > [@anon99163603](#): > > But it is censorship. And yes, they are allowed to censor you, it doesn’t change the fact that it is censorship. > [@overdrawn98901](#): > > There is likely a sliding scale to severity and impact of censorship Yes? Of course, being censored by a site where you can create infinite accounts is not the same as made “disappeared” by a dictatorship. --- ## Post 55 by @linussoytips — 2025-05-13T12:36:51Z So much has been written about this specific xkcd comic. Here’s one article about it: > **[Answers to 12 Bad Anti-Free Speech Arguments: Featuring That XKCD Cartoon...](https://www.thefire.org/news/blogs/eternally-radical-idea/answers-12-bad-anti-free-speech-arguments-featuring-xkcd-cartoon)** > > FIRE President and CEO Greg Lukianoff offers responses to some of the most common arguments against freedom of speech, and, where possible, suggestions for additional reading. Some additions: > **[Free Speech is bigger than the First Amendment: Part 4 of answers to bad...](https://www.thefire.org/news/blogs/eternally-radical-idea/free-speech-bigger-first-amendment-part-4-answers-bad-arguments)** > > Nadine Strossen, former head of the ACLU from 1991 to 2008, explains that free speech is a concept bigger than the First Amendment's speech protection. TL;DR: everyone who quotes or posts this xkcd does not understand freedom of speech. --- ## Post 56 by @overdrawn98901 — 2025-05-13T13:32:25Z > [@anon99163603](#): > > Yes, but I still don’t understand how you guys define censorship. We are all individuals, and probably have different interpretations. My interpretation of censorship is that it is suppressed expression with respect to an entity. Some may be defining low impactful censorship as not censorship at all. Some may define negligible censorship just as severe, a sort of binary approach. I take the sliding scale approach. To be specific, I consider the discussion of Mastadon drama low-impactful censorship. Not to say it isn’t worth talking about, but at this point it’s bike shedding definitions or a strange philosophical debate on freedom of speech. I do not speak on behalf of the PG team nor other community members. --- ## Post 57 by @anon80779245 — 2025-05-14T08:17:52Z > [@win11.shading291](#): > > Ok, if there’s a rule on a social media that says, don’t say cow. > > And you go ahead and say cow. And you get banned. Would you call that censorship? Because it clearly isn’t. Again, I have repeated over and over again that this mod violated no rule. That’s the issue, if he had then I would have had no problem. --- ## Post 58 by @overdrawn98901 — 2025-05-14T18:12:27Z He violated the implicit hidden rule: “Admins have the right to ban anyone they see fit for any reason at all without exception” That rule exists even on this forum. Hell even Jonah could wake up and think “this user? Yeah let’s kick him out for funsies” (PS I don’t think he would do that). However, it’s seldom ever used as it heavily violates trust in the admin by the community. In this case, you don’t trust the admin, so it checks out. Those who don’t disagree or don’t care will stick around. And this cycle has been repeated since the IRC days. --- ## Post 59 by @win11.shading291 — 2025-05-15T02:15:01Z > [@anon99163603](#): > > How would you define censorship? My perspective is perfectly worded in Overdrawn98901’s last 3 posts, especially the house analogy. --- ## Post 60 by @anonymous210384 — 2025-05-15T03:37:56Z Lack of enforcement of rules against executives due to their position does not mean anything executive wants/does is the rule. Otherwise the American president would not need Congress and Attorney general. The administrator “can” do whatever they want, but it does not mean they are not violating their own rules or somehow setting up new ones based on their whims and fancies. Like Facebook can technically keep my account active and impersonate me, but it does not mean Facebook has an implicit rule created by mere action of the executive about being allowed to impersonate me. Rules imply active consensus of the governed, are necessarily opt in, and are required to be explicit. Anything else is power drunk dictatorship, irrespective of if it benevolent or not. An easy example to check if you are suddenly supporting censorship is to replace organization/individual in the case with alternatives you support/oppose based on the case. For example, if cloudflare suddenly decided to block all internet traffic to any privacy advocacy organization, because: 1. Their act of blocking somehow made it an implicit rule, and now their rules say so, so it is valid. 2. And Privacy organizations can always ask users to route their traffic through different servers Would that not be censorship? I mean CDNs are effectively like large mastodon servers that interoperate. People are free to choose their own, right? Or even better, is Gmail suddenly allowed to ban accounts of the fundraising privacy communities in the inboxes of their users without any explanation because their “rules say so” without it being considered censorship? The user can always choose to reach their patrons on other platforms, can’t they? And their patrons can always switch providers with no friction, amirite? Very weird hill to die on. Any user being prevented from seeing any content is by definition censorship. It can be used for good, it can be used for bad, but stop painting it as “not censorship”. Is the motto “Small mom and pop software is allowed to violate my deeply held principles, because only big tech angers me” or something? > [@overdrawn98901](#): > > Jonah could wake up and think “this user? Yeah let’s kick him out for funsies Then whoever Jonah is would be violating community rules and their peers would do the necessary policing to stop them. Admin can do things, but it does not grant validity to their actions. See what WordPress drama is for an example. --- ## Post 61 by @overdrawn98901 — 2025-05-15T12:12:39Z I think you’ve made a straw man of what I was saying. > [@anonymous210384](#): > > Otherwise the American president would not need Congress and Attorney general. Mastadon server admins aren’t the government lol. This is clearly philosophical discussion about censorship now and not just about a Mastadon server admin, so I’ll switch gears to explain myself at where you are thinking. > [@anonymous210384](#): > > Then whoever Jonah is would be violating community rules and their peers would do the necessary policing to stop them. Peers couldn’t do jack shit by themselves alone technically. Given it’s a non profit, the board could see to him as unfit and boot him, and if the community complained loud enough to the board it could, so the “government” is the board. Google is a corporation. If the corporation decided to ban users, then they run a chance of getting a vote of unfit to run board of investors. If Google banned you for any reason that could be censorship. Their TOS, among everyone else’s, censors what is and is not allowed in their platform. Given Google is a for profit company, and Gmail is likely significantly more likely to be used as critical software for day to day livelihood, there is likely more action to take. This is also higher impactful censorship as it can deeply worsen your livelihood. [But it sucks fixing it](https://www.reddit.com/r/GoogleMyBusiness/comments/1ef8q97/google_just_suspended_my_business_profile_because/). And despite years of such practice of bot suspension, even on YouTube with bogus takedowns, FTC drags its heels. At this point the action isn’t to yell at Google, yell at their next up boss: the US government. Or switch to a platform that doesn’t have this BS on it. But it also sucks since everyone is on Google products, like YouTube, and content isn’t distributed elsewhere as much. But back on track, Mastadon server admins that are not official entities and corporations or non profits don’t answer to anyone else above them except government law. The FOSS software they are running comes with no warranty or TOS, so they set whatever is fair. As long as they aren’t breaking the law, they have the capability to ban whoever. You could try to lobby the government to better police Mastadon instances, but.. would you really want the government enforcing this kind of thing? Trust the Mastadon server admins, or trust the government to make laws that wouldn’t cripple free speech in the process of making it fair on Mastadon servers? To reiterate, just because I’m arguing that those have the capability to arbitrarily ban does not imply it’s not censorship, but simply a matter of fact. Our voices on any platform ran by some other entity is at the whim of the entity running it. That entity can be the government, corporation, or just a person. Some of these entities answer to higher powers, like a board or the government. Unless there a rules precedent by answering entities, those running the platform will be free to do as they wish. At some point, you put your trust somewhere in something enforcing rules in a fair way to protect your voice on the platform that is not owned by you: server admin, board of directors, the government. You can try to make change at a higher entity to enforce better protections against lower entities, such as a board overseeing a non profit, Further, if you are able to join the platform by shifting trust to yourself (self hosting Mastadon) you eliminate a necessary trust dependency which is great. Other cases (Gmail) you can laterally shift trust (ProtonMail). Worst case is no ability to shift trust (stuck in a Country and can’t leave). The ability to shift trust correlates with my perception of the impact of the censorship and ability to circumnavigate it. > [@anonymous210384](#): > > Any user being prevented from seeing any content is by definition censorship Never said it wasn’t. --- ## Post 62 by @overdrawn98901 — 2025-05-15T14:23:41Z This is a long post, but the point isn’t to say censorship can’t be a problem or isn’t a problem in these scenarios. I’m looking at it from a point of view to provide information that is actionable. I’m hoping the takeaways can be used in a threat model to asses how you share information. Being able to speak critically against regimes and what you believe is right is super important, and knowing how you can be silenced can be prepare you for what you need to do to ensure your messages aren’t stifled, or make change to secure that freedom for others. It’s not just whether it’s right or wrong, but rather it can and will happen. What you do when it happens, or before it happens, can make massive differences in your goals. The debate whether Mastodon drama was right or wrong is not that interesting to me. I have my opinions on it but it’s mostly irrelevant and have chosen not to voice it for that reason. How we can ensure our voices are heard and modeling to that knowing censorship will happen is what I’m interested in, and what PG is focused on in my opinion. --- ## Post 63 by @anonymous210384 — 2025-05-15T17:57:59Z Almost all of this is unrelated to what I said. You implied masto servers have implicit “don’t anger admins” rule, I disagree and showed why. I do not care what your definition of a well known term is, nor should you care how I define it, since both actions do not change the actual term. For my opinion on TFA, I think Mastodon admins doing active censorship of opinions they do not like without following a valid, clearly defined rule based order, makes them as s\*\*\* as as other social platforms, and is a valid reason for people ditching the platform for something like Nostr. --- ## Post 64 by @overdrawn98901 — 2025-05-15T18:38:15Z > [@anonymous210384](#): > > You implied masto servers have implicit “don’t anger admins” rule, I disagree and showed why. If this is the only thing you are debating, I’ll give a thought experiment. I spool up a public Mastadon instance. I pay for the server, or we could even say I self host on hardware I own. Users join the instance, and I run a scheduled algorithm that bans 1 user per year with no recourse. Every 5 years I run a job that bans a random moderator. Is it fair? Absolutely not, it’s a dumb thing to do. But who’s going to stop me? What law have I violated? I don’t answer to a board of trustees, investors, or anyone but the government. And the government says yeah it’s your server, or they say it’s against the law and fine me. Or a more nuanced thought experiment: let’s say I’m the perfect admin and have upheld feee speech to the highest capability that I’m able to. I lose my job, run out of cash, and without warning the server running the instance dies, and I was irresponsible and took no backups - lost forever. I have now unintentionally censored everyone on my platform. Other than ask me to get it up and running again, or hand money my way, what is a user expected to do without the admin to get the same platform up and running again? Google has sunset many of their services, and there is some page that has some list of everything they’ve killed. I’ve been on forums where the server admin said “yup I can’t keep the lights on, good luck and god speed”. I’ve also attempted to log onto an older forums to see a 404 and all of my prior peers lost to time. These aren’t unique problems to Mastadon, it’s the inherit problem of software running on someone’s else’s computer. > [@anonymous210384](#): > > makes them as s\*\*\* as as other social platforms This is mostly my opinion as well. The only tangible difference is that there is an option to switch instances and still be a part of the community, and laterally shift trust in server admins on the same platform. Centralized servers you get only one admin to trust. One to one vs one to many of platform to admins to trust. But the amount of **drama** from this is just multiplied and seems annoying to deal with as a user. Still, the echo chambers will naturally form on all social media. Algorithms put you in your place, Mastadon administrators decide who you get to talk to. These suck because the power is not in the user to decide who they do and don’t see, whether explicitly by banning or implicitly through algorithms. The analogy of the house here weakens because these are public forums with multiple levels of power structure. It’s more like a Home Owners Association saying which other HOAs you can talk to, which is as stupid as it sounds. (Analogy breaks down as I think you can still read what other instances are up to, so no censored from a read-only standpoint jsut two way comms?). Analogies for federation are just weak, so I give up lol. But if users have the freedom to choose who they do and don’t see via blocking by their choice, then at least the echo chamber is of their own design and not the powers that be. This is likely what you and I are both trying to get to agree on? But there will always exist some person in charge of the server that decides what stays and goes by their sole decision alone, even if it was an isolated single instance, as they are the ones who have the SSH keys to the house and admin rights. Only way around this is to be an admin yourself and own your own home. With self hosting this is possible. With centralized services, not possible. --- ## Post 65 by @Cincinnatus — 2025-06-01T01:36:50Z > [@anon88979181](#): > > If you don’t like it, make your own and communicate with the larger fediverse. Sounds to me like it may not be possible to communicate with the larger fediverse unless you fall in line with certain beliefs. --- ## Post 66 by @curie — 2025-06-03T21:19:47Z Would you say a neighborhood not allowing certain newspapers to be delivered to houses within the neighborhood to be a form of censorship?