Whoever this @r000t person is, he's a perfect example of how white folks perform being a proponent of safety and choice, but will always leave a door open for hateful bigots to perpetuate their rage.
And like I've been saying all day, you can't have it both ways.
You can't say you're an advocate for safety and then turn around and get validation from the most notorious bigots on the web.
You're just a fraud that is too much of a coward to be what you are.
And yes, we see you.
@fireglow
That was my guess.
I genuinely feel bad, because I want Mastodon to succeed *in spite of assholes*
I just think we're gonna have a much easier time getting to "1 negative interaction before blocking" than "negative interactions never ever happen"
My software solution idea, which should also help small instance owners like him, is something similar to MCBans' old system. More on this later.
@fireglow @terryenglish
In short, people sign up to a federated block provider.
Your instance asks the provider how many other instances (on the provider) have blocked a particular user or remote instance. If it's above a threshold you set, it's as good as blocked.
This also means you don't gotta sink time into just maintaining block lists. It's one click herd immunity.
I want everyone happy. But I'm also an engineer.
@r000t @fireglow I don't know if I like the idea of an automatic block list as a general rule. I certainly don't think that blocking should be done at the instance level. Users can decide for themselves what to block. Some are only on social media to feed their narcissism like our friend who rage quit and the only solution for those people is to get out into the real world.
Oh boy, here's where I piss off the other side and have nobody to talk to :(
In the past 5 years, I've learned that some users want choices abstracted from them. That, of itself, is their choice.
It's why I think the list of "global" blocks for an instance should be public. It's one of the things you compare when you "shop" for a place to make your Mastodon account.
If Joe Blow wants their feed curated, more power to them.
@terryenglish @fireglow
And an instance admin suddenly going haywire, or selling out, or becoming ill, or any number of things
We need to be able to "Takeout" out entire accounts, and import them elsewhere. Right now you can do it with some lists, but certainly not your toots.
As it is, I meant to release my "Mastoleum" static-host for archives like two fucking weeks ago.
@terryenglish @fireglow
That's the other bit: Dude was subtooting talking about how "this guy doesn't know instance blocks exist OMEGALUL"
Dude's goal seems to be "I will never ever see anything I find detestable", and I'm saying "You may have to see it one time, before never seeing it again."
If that's unreasonable, that person's gonna have a super hard time functioning in society.
@terryenglish @fireglow
My problem is that the *latest* person to give their opinion on me is always assumed to be correct.
That's one hell of a bug.
I'm kinda mushing all my replies to your toots into one:
> and that'd require some serious advances in AI
Strongly disagree. As I've said previously, tech that makes choices automatically, or tech that tries to guess what users want, is inherently broken.
I say, while enjoying the music suggestions youtube gives me.
But that's all they are: suggestions.
The choice should always be mine.
Users have to feel (and more importantly, actually be) empowered, not incapacitated by tech.
Shoutout to gogl and their filter bubbles here.
> 'federate ONLY with instances I allow' definitely needs to be an option.
Absolutely agree.
> just because I'm Irish.
Has nothing to do with anything ;) The best way to play with racists is to take the cards out of their hands.
> Oh boy, here's where I piss off the other side and have nobody to talk to :(
Not at all, at least not me. I'm just telling you what I think about your idea.
> the list of "global" blocks for an instance should be public.
That should be an absolute given. At least there should be a choice. If disabled, people can then go and ask the admins as to the reason(s) why. Transparency.
> Dude's goal seems to be "I will never ever see anything I find detestable", and I'm saying "You may have to see it one time, before never seeing it again."
I understand that you feel attacked, because, well, he did attack you.
But don't make this about him. I just read his original post again and wonder who could something like that seriously. Of course this is easy for me to say, I did not get attacked, but don't put too much weight into his words.
>We need to be able to "Takeout" out entire accounts, and import them elsewhere.
Absolutely!
The fediverse is far from being feature complete, if indeed that can ever be achieved. As you point out, there are crucial features missing.
CC @terryenglish
@fireglow
Thanks bro.
I want everyone happy. The problem with that goal is that people on either extreme feel the other doesn't have a right to be happy, and left to themselves.
@terryenglish
What I was going to say:
I certainly would never deploy or use such a system. Strongly worded, but let me explain:
A system that takes these VERY IMPORTANT choices out of the users hands is pure evil.
At best I could imagine something like "Here's some instance blocks we think you'd enjoy".
But in all honesty, I think such a system is an ideal tool for people to a) abuse, and b) unwary ones to shoot themselves in the foot with.
Automatic censorship is something very dangerous, I believe.
People should have the opportunity to be able to change their minds the very next day. A instance blocklist, hidden ten clicks away in settings, hinders that greatly.
I think technology should only ever be used to connect people, not wall them off.
Just my two cents.