Discussion
I want to clarify something, which may not be well understood.
The federation of instances from which people post are autonomous. They’re run by different people, and have different rules. Posters are governed by the rules of the server they post from, not by the rules of every instance on which their post might end up being read.
My instance has no rules requiring warnings on posts about elections or voting. I would never use a server that did, because it’s a topic of major interest to me.
@mattblaze
I understand the intent was to self-censor content that hits like a viral mental illness. A guideline for tourists, say, voluntarily enforced by native inhabitants of the platform. An attempt to keep poison ivy out of a garden. A sort of Darjeeling Limited approach to leaving our baggage on the other platforms before jumping onto this train.
It works better in a movie though.
@mattblaze I was blocked by someone a couple of years ago when I tried explaining that. They were appalled that other people could read and reply to their posts without their consent and I was like, yeah, it's still social media. You can make it private or public, but once it's public you can't rein it back in.
@mattblaze That kind of self-governance is one of my favorite features of federated networks. Shame so many people have been trained to expect all online social interactions to work like they do on legacy systems that are strictly centralized.
I wonder if they ever go to their favorite burger joint and then start yelling at the people across the street who are just trying to enjoy some phở.
This seems to upset some people, who probably are themselves hosted on instances with different rules and who don’t understand why I “get away” with flagrantly violating rules that I took great care to ensure don’t apply where I post.
But that’s the nature of a federated system. People pick an instance that fits their needs. My choice of instance (and the rules that go with it) is as valid and legitimate as anyone else’s.
This last day I’ve been bombarded with some very angry comments from people who want me to follow a different set of rules, where discussing “politics” is discouraged or requires a warning. That might be what people on some other instances want, but it simply doesn’t work for me, which is why I’m hosted where I am.
I don’t want to cause anyone any distress, but, frankly, trying to dictate what I can and can’t post about is not going to work.
@mattblaze @oblomov If you cannot, or do not wish to, comply with those demands, let them mute you. I’d say that’s their problem, not yours.
@mattblaze oh no...i feel sorry about what happened to you. Internet is like that sometimes, people might follow the crowd in the comments and without independent thinking. Its easily become a snowball effect
the fedi norm should be post anything if you're not tagging anybody and your server owner is cool with it AND every server federates with every other server. basically how the web works with content.
the problem is decentralized social media also lets us bother others. focus mods on it. police personal attacks and repeated unwanted comments/replies by your server's users or risk defederation. it's the only thing that should warrant that but "good intentions" should not protect you.
The entire idea of CW as an effective self-censorship/moderation mechanism in an effectively global forum is flawed to begin with. Even if everyone agreed (everyone doesn't) - there are simply too many different cultural and personal triggers out there - you'd have to CW every post. And that's ignoring the trolls. It might work in a small, insular group of like-minded people - but a federated global chat isn't that.
The reality is if you see a post - you was it because you followed the poster, or someone you follow boosted it, or you're browsing the local feed. Unfollow. Block. You have tools.
But forcing self-censorship isn't one of them.
@mattblaze I just wonder where people find your posts. Do they follow you? Then they can just unfollow.
Does someone they follow boosts posts on certain topics that don't have CWs? Seems like they should talk it out with them.
Or is this a case of people searching specific keywords just to pick a fight? Hm.
This reminds me of days of yore when AOL joined the Internet and gave subscribers access to Usenet, the distributed (federated?) discussion system.
The "You're violating AOL Terms of Service and I'm reporting you" statements sound much like what you're dealing with.
Viva la federation.
@mattblaze Nor should it. In my (former, now that I'm retired) sphere, we see an astonishing number of film "critics" who don't want to engage on the relative merits of film, but instead to just end any films which they disagree with. They want people to stop making films that they don't like. Or think they might not like. It's absurd. We don't get to tell other people what to do just to make us more comfortable. Keep up the good work, Matt.
@mattblaze If only there were a way for these people to not see your posts…
@mattblaze I've seen some of the accounts coming at you being weird in other people's replies as well, including going after comedy accounts, etc. I think one of the strengths of the Fediverse is that there IS space here for people with a variety of different needs, it's great that there ARE instances where people can expect certain kinds of things to be CWed or moderated away, but that does inevitably lead to some culture clashes.
Perhaps one solution is for these folks to request their mods block or limit instances that don't require CWs on things that they find harmful to see
@mattblaze So why are they following/reading your posts? If they don't like the content, then they shouldn't look. Sheesh.
Or scroll past...
I don’t know who these angry people are or what motives they have. They might be malicious trolls. There might be mental health issues involved. Or they might simply want to avoid the topics I post about for whatever reason.
Fortunately, while I’m not going to change what I post about or how I do so, those who don’t want to read them have access to a range of powerful tools for curating their own feed. Please use them.
I actually DO have politics filters for this account. Sometimes I like to be able to see that a world outside of politics still exists, and that people are doing interesting and important things that have nothing to do with a certain 80 year old narcissist. I have a separate account for politics stuff, without a filters, and following a different set of people.
I follow you here on my politics free account because I like your photography. Perhaps I should follow you on my politics-friendly account as well, because I don't really know what I'm missing with these posts of yours that my filters are presumably keeping out of my feed.
Having the two accounts really is a great way of managing my blood pressure, though. I recommend it to everyone.
@mattblaze Still angry at you for not posting content warnings on black and white photography. #scold-o-don
@mattblaze there seems to be a mode of thinking - and usually with the best intentions - that practice rule based virtue (deontological but lacking depth). Typically I see it as "To be a [decent/moral/supportive/inclusive] person do things 1,2,3...n" . Then where someone does not follow one those rules they are immediately branded as hateful, spiteful ,ignorant, or generally a 'bad person'.
The best intentioned ones will try to explain the rule in hopes you will practice it. And then you get folks who immediately flash anger, and angrily cite to their rules and your violation is "proof" of your moral turpitude.
Trying to explain context and nuance, or principled reasons why you don't agree with stated rules only affirm their assumption that you are a wicked person.
Rule based virtue seeking is easy albeit blunt. It's a bright line standard that obviates the need to think about context, intent, nuance, and application - it's primarily: "you broke the rule, end of discussion".
And like a lot of others in this thread - the best thing is to mute/block, move on and perhaps one day the "arbitrary rule police" will moderate - but if not they are welcome to find their own communities and police themselves.
The rest of us can stay punk.
There's a subculture that developed quite a few years ago here on the Fediverse that includes extremely sensitive people that have trouble regulating their emotional state, and that expect millions of strangers on a public internet-wide social media network to regulate instead on their behalf. Unfortunately, that subculture overlaps strongly with scolds. Some mean well, but some live for criticising others for the usual maladjusted psychological and sociological reasons.
For myself, I think it's reasonable to feel empathy for what traumatized individuals are going through. Shit sucks, especially for the persecuted and traumatized, and being constantly reminded of it also sucks.
But I don't think their demands that we self-censor are reasonable. Better approaches, or at least more reasonable ones, likely involve some sort of therapy to better regulate their emotions when confronted with emotional triggers, alongside better choices about whether and how to interact with large-scale public social media.
I've gone through times in my life when I've withdrawn from public social media for my own well-being. It's a perfectly reasonable and healthy choice. Private group chat among close friends and special interest groups is a very reasonable alternative to public social media. Escaping into hobbies or leaning forward into volunteering and activism are also reasonable alternatives. Demanding self-censorship regarding normal topics of conversation of complete strangers on a public and global social media network isn't.
@mattblaze
Probably a combination of Putinbots, etc. and the vulnerable social media users who they've destabilized and radicalized. They're in insular and toxic social circles where they work to impress each other by aggressively attacking prolific targets who don't follow whatever rules they've settled upon.
@mattblaze politics is everything. Social is political. It is the height of political to assert that whatever is apolitical, because that act alone is a political statement underpinned by the entire human political arrangement that allows one to be there in that moment making that statement to other people. Hypocrisy. They indict themselves.
@mattblaze
I'm guessing that there's a significant minority of users on the federation who do not know how to use filters, or even that word filters are available.
I use word, phrase and hashtag filters a lot to keep my feed fairly clean of things I have no interest in, or I simply don't want to see. It's imperfect but it's better than nothing.
Yes, I agree w/ you 💯
@mattblaze more than that though - people can mute terms they don't like? I do it all the time.
This is just expecting everyone else to do the work to protect them from stuff that honestly only they know if they want to see.
Install bonfire.cafe
Get the full app experience
