Post AZxWAsmR4bZgqDsfFQ by Wander@packmates.org
(DIR) More posts by Wander@packmates.org
(DIR) Post #AZxWAsmR4bZgqDsfFQ by Wander@packmates.org
2023-09-18T22:30:16Z
1 likes, 1 repeats
In the wake of #fediblock and #thebadspace controversy, I would like to highlight the existance of the #RemoteNeutrality approach. Remember #NetNeutrality, ISPs being common carriers and them not meddling with the pages users want to see? This is similar.Under a "remote neutral" approach each #fediverse instance leaves the tight opinionated moderation policies to their own users users and the content their users generate or share with the aim of running a safe and welcoming instance for their members that's safe to federate with.However, remote content is only moderated whenever there is a report and only blocked if it's straight out illegal to host / cache or constitute unsolicited spam/harassment. Otherwise objectionable remote content is limited at most and users can block it if they want.I can't stress enough the benefits this has:1. It makes moderation feasible for small instances2. It does not fracture the fediverse unnecessarily
(DIR) Post #AZxWAuhBx4ZImXRVLs by Wander@packmates.org
2023-09-18T22:41:59Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
In practice if there's a new 'anti-lgbt' instance users at packmates.org could read their posts because we wouldn't block them... but in practice this never happens and our server doesn't know these instances exist since none of our users would follow these accounts anyways.Essentially we need to remember that every remote account is technically 'blocked' by default, in the sense that its content won't even reach your server unless your users are interested in it.Thus, I believe that my focus should be on moderating the content that our userbase publishes and shares while I couldn't give a flying fuck about the droves of objectionable content there's on remote instances. I don't have the energy nor do I need to care about it until it somehow reaches my instance in which case I'll block it if it's illegal or limit it if objectionable but not illegal.
(DIR) Post #AZxWAwWz7zamTSgNii by Wander@packmates.org
2023-09-18T22:47:14Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
By limiting remote content at most (unless illegal) I protect our users while also avoiding overzealous domain blocks which can be problematic as we've seen over and over again.If the #fediverse is split on whether project A is good or bad, has good intentions but bad execution or good execution but bad intentions... it doesn't matter too much. There is no need for us to position ourselves or try to learn about a new controversy that has recently popped up.If it could impact the user experience by appearing in our federated timeline, we'll limit them but we avoid jumping the gun or causing irreversible damage by avoiding remote blocks whenever possible unless this remote content is evidently illegal to host / cache or constitutes spam / harassment. I hope this exemplifies a little the concept of #RemoteNeutrality, while focusing moderation on local users and content. #Mastoadmin #fediblock
(DIR) Post #AalT2TptLNZHtR0tEm by untsuki@udongein.xyz
2023-10-14T15:15:05.056922Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Wander Stumbled upon this post, and want to say that Udongein.xyz is an instance with simmilar moderation policy (Which is why it's in almost every fediblock list and even it's previous admin was quickly fediblocked when he created new single user instance) but with addition of moderation by removing instances from federated/global timeline when they don't host illegal content but are generally filled with nasty posts. And I think it's the right way to go with moderation, though I think that trying to make a "safe place" kind of instance by blocking is fine too if moderators are doing it manually based on their own decisions and without banning "Remote Neutrality" instances just because they are not blocking someone.