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.
2 Likes
I’ll refer you back to my previous comment:
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.
7 Likes
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).
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.
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
–
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.
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.
All Fosstodon moderation decisions were based on a objective process, and he never did anything contrary to fosstodon rules and guidelines.
I think that’s more true of Bluesky 
, where they would label - not remove- content that some might find inappropriate. You can then choose whether you want to see it or now.
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
1 Like
Maybe I am missing something here. How is banning another instance based on their internal functionning - and not the posts they allow- objective moderation ?
1 Like
From one instances’ POV, it is. From another, it certainly must not seem so.
Per your logic, any banned users on Facebook can just create their own blog and that’s fine
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)
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.
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
1 Like
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.
1 Like
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.
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.
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.
Censorship is in the eye of the beholder? lol.
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.
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.
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
3 Likes
Mostodon suffers from the “Admin-in-the-middle” problem.
4 Likes
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. 
If yes suggest any other server pls.
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
1 Like
They called him a nazi, that’s why he got mad.
@pika check out article in the sentence above, it explains it a bit
the two admins resigned, in part because of harasment ,also see here
2 Likes