lor.sh is one of the many independent Mastodon servers you can use to participate in the fediverse.
lor.sh is yet another mastodon instance.

Administered by:

Server stats:

369
active users

Hey Fedi Admins, y'all federating with this? :Threads_Burning: #FediPact

@ErikUden
Are you suggesting to block large instance just because there are some morons or trolls?

@skobkin No, I'm suggesting to defederate from instances who not only allow but endorse users who disobey your rules, especially when it comes to discrimination, disinformation, etc.

If Threads was a Mastodon instance it would violate almost every instance's rules.

@ErikUden
How exactly are they endorsing users to break their rules?

@skobkin they endorse users who disobey our rules by pushing accounts like Moms for Liberty, Gays Against Groomers, or other alt-right and far right accounts / viewpoints. They allow such users on their platform even after reporting, which means they are tolerating what they are posting.

Again, if this was a Fedi instance it'd be defederated.

Alexey Skobkin

@ErikUden
I see.
But still if it's their instance then your rules don't apply there.
Not sure how they can endorse someone to your instance users though.
Also not sure why ban entire instance instead of just suspending or limiting bad actors too.

It lowers an amount of moderation work needed, but degrades the decentralized network.
For me personally instance user's ability to read anyone is more important.

@skobkin have you ever run a social network? You're telling me I should individually ban each Nazi on the 141 million user social network instead of just defederating from the Nazi network all together? Sorry not sorry, but that's just not possible. Every Admin has a limited amount of time. If your instance isn't moderating discrimination it has no place interacting with our users.

Those were the rules for every other Fediverse instance, and we do not discriminate nor favor Threads in any way. They are to be treated like every other instance.

For me personally an instance's user's ability to not be harassed but protected is more important.

@ErikUden
Yes, I did.

We have reports to deal with that. You can say that reports are reactive and not proactive. But then you're becoming biased to a LOT of users just because they've chosen their instance without thorough due diligence.

Not sure how this helps to protect users because bad actor can register on your instance or any other instance you're still federating with 🤷
In the end you'll still be reacting to that after the fact.

@skobkin@lor.sh @ErikUden@mastodon.de

yes they can register on any other instance, though if they proceed to attack someone or whatever they'll either be reported and have action taken by that respective instance, or, if they proceed to do nothing, endorse it, whatever else that instance might also be blocked as a result.

Also on another note some fedi software, like Firefish, specifically mention defederating instances that allow such behavior as part of their server guidelines.

In general, threads should be given the same treatment as a regular instance, albeit a massive one, and going by that they'd already violate a ton of instances rules or become a possible threat as having to moderate potentially a few thousand to a tens of thousands of accounts isn't possible, let alone practical, for most volunteer instance admins and mods. As for that number, LibsOfTiktok alone had a following of roughly 30k last time I checked, though being generous here as not every single one of them might be active.

@wxifu @ErikUden
> if they proceed to do nothing, endorse it, whatever else that instance might also be blocked as a result

So the bad actor has useful means to degrade Fediverse connectivity. Nice 👍

> a possible threat as having to moderate potentially a few thousand to a tens of thousands of accounts

So if mods are feeling incapable of doing moderation why not limiting the instance instead of suspending / blocking?
This way users still can follow anyone there if they want, but bad actors won't reach your instance themselves. 🤔

@skobkin @wxifu @ErikUden this is literally the bread & butter of what makes the fedi a better experience than most other social media. Yeah it means you get to host an instance where you let people be nazis & pedos. It also means I can just an instance that doesn't allow my users' information to be shared with nazis & pedos. That's the magic. If you choose to hang out with nazis & pedophiles, no one is obligated to hang out with YOU either, bc they don't want to associate with nazis & pedos LOL

@skobkin @wxifu @ErikUden if you're upset that your friends can't engage with you because you're on an instance that hosts nazis & pedos, then great news! It's very easy to move to one that doesn't! There is zero reason why that's anyone else's problem but yours & it does not mean any instance should put their users at risk just because you just have to be on nazipedo.social for some reason lmao

@skobkin
It's simple. If bad actors register on an instance you're federating with, you report it to this instance's admins. If they don't see the problem, you deferedate with them because they're going to let problematic users and content reach your instance.

If bad actors register on your instance, contact your admins. If they don't care, change instance for the same reasons.

Federation is a tool, not a duty. If you think "just report, block them, deal with it", that's X.

@ErikUden

@themeowcate @ErikUden
> Federation is a tool, not a duty
> If you think "just report, block them, deal with it", that's X.

Ok, let's suppose that I have my own instance which I don't right now.

The only thing I don't think is that I have right to decide what users CAN read. If I feel that the instance can be malicious, I can LIMIT them, so bad actors from there won't reach my users on their own. But if my users WANT to read someone there, I shouldn't be the one to tell them if they can or not :philosoraptor:

@skobkin
Yes, you can, you absolutely can. And if your users are not happy with that, Mastodon has tools to change instance : they're not forced to stay here as they'd transfer their account.

Your instance, your moderation rules. Like if you own a forum. A Discord server. A Minecraft server. You can even have an closed Mastodon instance for your work or a small group of friends.

This is not like others social networks trying to connect the whole world together *whatever the cost*.

@ErikUden

@ErikUden@mastodon.de @skobkin@lor.sh The argument I've seen is "but Threads have not done anything yet" (which even at that isn't true, but let's run with it).

The thing is we
know what Meta has been up to for almost 20 years now from Facebook. So even if Threads hadn't yet been problematic on the fediverse, that's kind of akin to saying that a person who's burgled other people's houses has never burgled ours, so we should be happy to give them a copy of our keys and the alarm code.

They have form and an established pattern of behaviour and unlike some people they've never been given an opportunity to be reformed nor have they demonstrate change on their own, not to mention that *corporations aren't people* so this simile is inherently limited anyway.

@ErikUden @skobkin Thanks, but no thanks, for
✅ feeding the troll
✅ trolling my feed

@maelduin13
We already have this problem with mastodon.social. When some instances wanted to limit/ban .social because it had problematic content/users and the others instances admins couldn't get the .social admins to moderate their instance, some people went crazy "you can't block them, they're the biggest instance, you would kill the Fediverse !".

@ErikUden @skobkin @erosalie @trumpet

@themeowcate @ErikUden @skobkin @erosalie @trumpet

Yes I think any server over a certain size is a risk - mastodon.social included

@maelduin13 @ErikUden @skobkin @themeowcate @erosalie @trumpet

I guess you are right.

Take a leaf out of the book of Nature.

The cells in your body can't become arbitrarily big.

Federated servers should not become arbitrarily big. If they get too big, they should split into two like cell division.

By the way, that also applies to constructs like companies!
Companies are too big when they are able to subdue the society, that they live off.

wired.com/1996/11/es-wintzen/

@maelduin13 @ErikUden @skobkin @themeowcate @erosalie @trumpet I'm probably wading in with not enough social context, so apologies, but the point of federation for me was never to enable server-level blocks. In a sentence, it was to enable, at scale, new ways of operating that don't depend on monopolistic control.

Moderation itself could be federated (and imho should be), making it possible for instance operators to meaningfully delegate moderation to trusted organization(s).

@blaine @ErikUden @skobkin @themeowcate @erosalie @trumpet

From when I first heard of Mastodon circa 2016 it was always about the power to block other instances - unless I'm misremembering

I hear what your saying though - open standards permit innovation and evolving protocols

With a Moderation as a Service model don't we just risk another centralized control scenario - albeit distributed across a few entities?

@maelduin13 @ErikUden @skobkin @themeowcate @erosalie @trumpet Mastodon's a latecomer to the game. 😅 I honestly thought we'd missed our chance back in ~2009, but it's still so very early — lots can and will change yet. ❤️

I don't think we'll end up in a centralized control situation, because instance admins (and users & their communities!) will still have choice and control. It's obviously a risk, but the important thing is to build alternatives with intention.

@maelduin13 @ErikUden @skobkin @themeowcate @erosalie @trumpet probably important to say that I do believe (and hope!) that "non-globally-federating communities" will be an important part of the fediverse. My hope is that the scope and complexity of the fediverse becomes synonymous with the web & the internet so that everyone can benefit, not just people who are comfortable in alt spaces.

@blaine @ErikUden @skobkin @themeowcate @erosalie @trumpet

I do like the idea of MaaS to help out overburdened server admins - particularly if it's bespoke

But I don't think this addresses the risk of a mega instance run by a Musk or Zuckerberg effectively becoming the default and allowing e.g. Kremlin propaganda to permeate the fediverse

It seems to me like it's a matter of people wanting AP to become the dominant protocol, whatever the cost

@maelduin13 @ErikUden @skobkin @themeowcate @erosalie @trumpet I'd put it this way: right now, Musk & Zuck *are* the default, and have no incentive to change. Many people would like alternatives, but have a higher affinity to their community (on Meta/X) than they do protocol politics. I don't think anything gets better without a federated social model as default. Nb, I think it's a necessary but not nearly sufficient condition. 😅

@blaine @ErikUden @skobkin @themeowcate @erosalie @trumpet

I think we are very much at the 'Sophie's choice' stage

I'm torn when I suggest a limit on server size as I'm aware that it could permanently scupper the chances of AP being the dominant protocol

But if, in a year or two's time, the fediverse is as big as twitter once was and has even a quarter the amount of Kremlin disinfo then it will have failed

Time will tell 😀!

@maelduin13 @ErikUden @skobkin @themeowcate @erosalie @trumpet If that's the "whole fucking point," why isn't that point enforced at a protocol level (other than the fact that it can't realistically be enforced at a protocol level)?

The notion that the highest ideal of a federated network is 'we can't allow anyone to be too successful' sounds like a lowbrow satire of Communism. I can't even picture how the #fediverse utopians think that would work!

>For me personally an instance's user's ability to not be harassed but protected is more important.
You say that, and at the same time want other instances to ban the people whom you have reported. See below.
>They allow such users on their platform even after reporting
From my perspective, it is *you* who are harassing folks. Faggot.

@skobkin @ErikUden

> But still if it's their instance then your rules don't apply there.

Exactly, which is why Federating with a massive organization that allows hatespeech is bad.

There are 1500 Facebook users for every Mastodon user. We will be overwhelmed by it!

> For me personally instance user's ability to read anyone is more important.

Explain how not Federating with Threads prevents people who want to from going to Threads and read anyone?

@TomSwirly @ErikUden
> Explain how not Federating with Threads prevents people who want to from going to Threads and read anyone?

Why should I explain that if that implies the fact that I'm leaving them no choice in such case?

Why should they leave? Why should I give them a binary choice 'You're with us or you against us'? Why should they choose between local users and threads users? Why should they watch Facebook ads? Why should they be a subject for Facebook algorithms in their feed?

I can't explain that to myself.

@skobkin @ErikUden

People have all the choice in the world.

People don't have to "leave" Mastodon in order to see some other feed: web browsers have multiple pages.

I can go to threads.net and see a bunch of content without an account.

Complaining that you can't see Threads on Mastodon is like complaining you can't see Netflix on YouTube.

There are 1500 FB users for ever Mastodon user. Even if only 1% ever use threads, that's 15 of them for every one of us - 15x the work for moderators.

@TomSwirly @ErikUden
> I can go to threads.net and see a bunch of content without an account.

Uhh-huh. It would be so convenient. Exactly the same experience like home feed.

> Complaining that you can't see Threads on Mastodon is like complaining you can't see Netflix on YouTube.

This is where it becomes funny. Federation and interoperability is exactly the thing to solve that problem. This is the one of key points that distinguishes Mastodon and other federated networks from Facebook and YouTube.
But as always people are ruining it 🤷‍♂️

So yes, if I WAS able to see Netflix on YouTube because they were created to operate this way and then someone said that now I can't, I'll complain.

@skobkin @ErikUden

> It would be convenient.

The effort involved in opening a second page is tiny, so this is not in fact any sort of consideration.

> This is where it becomes funny.

It would be nice to have one interaction with you where you showed some respect.

The advantage of Federation is not that you should be required to carry content you don't want to.

My instance doesn't federate with a lot of other instances: explicitly Fascist or white-power instances, for example.