Don't break the fediverse
PeerTube does it very well when it comes to the Federation-Moderation. Listen!
PeerTube allows you, the admin, to keep your instance clean. Nice rhyme! :)
You can follow any instance, channel, user that you want. Restrict the search to only these. And so when people use your PeerTube they see your curated content only, even when they search for something. While at the same time any user on your PeerTube can still subscribe, watch, and interact with ANYONE on any other PeerTube instances. That's how it should be.
A balance between having tremendous control over your own instance, but at the same time do not break the fediverse by cutting ties with other instances. Yes, PeerTube also gives admins the option to ban entire instances or users, but the fact that they give these positive reinforcers like mentioned above, makes an instance admin not want to use these "nuking" options.
This is because I and others have insisted that they provide us with these tools. We suggested to them what to implement and it works! My instance was full of crap, even after I started to manage it in terms of what users can upload on our PeerTube. But after they introduced custom homepages, the ability to follow channels, instances, users and limit the trending, discover, the search and the like, to only these, since then my instance is a fuck ton cleaner. So it works.
Why in the name of the fediverse I, the admin, may want to block any other instance when I have so much control over my own!?
Oh, and PeerTube also allows any user to quickly block any user and even delete all at once all of their comments from their videos. So imagine if someone trolls you on PeerTube, with 1 click you ban them from ever posting and also delete ALL of their comments on ALL of your videos.
Give users the power to protect themselves and make it very easy to do so. And give admins the power to keep their instances clean without the need of cutting ties with any other instances, something that will affect all users and have a slippery slope effect.
Don't break the fediverse :D #tromlive
like this
LPS, Roma, Mark, Sasha, Rokosun, Benjamin π¨π»π»π, SparkIT, Rufus Aleksandr, bengo, Endless Mason, GuySoft, N0vA, Ninja :blobninja:, LPS, hobs and Joel de Bruijn like this.
reshared this
LPS, Rokosun, SparkIT, Mark, undívaga, Al ππΈβββββ, Tim Chambers, LPS, Joel de Bruijn and Marco Iannaccone reshared this.
Rokosun
in reply to Tio • • •Tio likes this.
... (FKA Gergely Nagy π)
in reply to Tio • • •Because I, as an admin, have an obligation to my users to shield them from harassment. It's far more practical to block an entire instance from federating with mine in any shape or form, than it is to ask my users to do so individually.
As an admin, I serve my users. If my users tell me they don't ever want to hear from $X, I'll block it for them.
Tio
in reply to ... (FKA Gergely Nagy π) • •... (FKA Gergely Nagy π)
in reply to Tio • • •I do not ask my users. They ask me, I evaluate, and act accordingly. And yes, they fully understand that our instances will not be able to communicate in the future. That is the desired outcome. There were 0 complains in the past 4 years.
Because it is much easier for them if I take care of it. Future users won't even need to.
I'll give you an example in the next toot.
... (FKA Gergely Nagy π)
in reply to ... (FKA Gergely Nagy π) • • •Here's a scenario: my instances are LMBTQ+ friendly. This tends to attract a whole lot of harassers which none of us here want to ever interact with. So we first report the harassment to their instance admins, and if nothing happens, we just ban the whole thing. Problem solved, for all current and future users.
If I didn't ban them, each and every one of my users would have to, individually. Me doing it also makes ME the target of any retaliation, and I'm more equipped to handle that.
... (FKA Gergely Nagy π)
in reply to ... (FKA Gergely Nagy π) • • •I'm not saying that individuals being able to ban and mute whatever they want is a bad thing. It's great. But the admin being able to help the entire instance is also a good thing.
Care must be taken, indeed, blanket bans are a double edged sword. But sometimes it is the right call. Neither my users, nor I ever want to interact with instances full of transphobes or other hateful people. Cutting those off at the admin level is more practical than every user doing it on their own.
Tio
in reply to ... (FKA Gergely Nagy π) • •... (FKA Gergely Nagy π)
in reply to Tio • • •Indeed, I cannot fully evaluate it. But if repeated harassers don't get dealt with, that's an instance I do not want to federate with. Any good people on those, can choose an instance that has admins who are willing to act on reports and not just make things worse.
If any of my users report that they are in any way inconvenienced with an instance ban, we'll figure something out. None of them did so far.
Yep, that's one of my instances, and I intentionally don't make my blocklist public.
... (FKA Gergely Nagy π)
in reply to ... (FKA Gergely Nagy π) • • •Tio
in reply to ... (FKA Gergely Nagy π) • •This blocking is a blind game. I go on your instance and have no idea that you chose to not connect with other instances, The fediverse is already hard to grasp for most people, nowgo ahead and explain to them that it is not really like you can connect with anyone who has as federated account. It depends where these accounts get created. It is like XMPP server admins cut ties with other XMPP servers, and you have no clue about that.
This is a bad practice. Non transparent, confusing, rushed, unnecessary. Let the people take care of themselves and not break the fediverse.
... (FKA Gergely Nagy π)
in reply to Tio • • •It's not a blind game. I go to great lengths to research an instance before I block them. I explore other avenues first. My users - past, present and future - know my stance on blocking, they are aware that there are a dozen or two blocked instances. That's part of the onboarding process. This works for us fine, and has saved a lot of trouble for my users.
It is necessary, because asking each and every user to block the same stuff is not very practical. They don't want to deal with that.
Tio
in reply to ... (FKA Gergely Nagy π) • •Your instance has 7 users from what I see, but for instances larger than say 100 users this is not applicable. And it backfires. Also, why this need to take care of users when they can easily take care of themselves? Same way you do it for them, they can do it for themselves. You see a weird post/user, hover the name and block. Done. So the better and easier tools users have in this regards, the better will be for us all. Admins would not need to take care of these users.
For example if we would brainstorm more we could come up with an opt-in feature for users of any instances if they want to let the admins moderate stuff for them. Like an adblock list made by the admins. If I enable that then all of your blocking will protect me too, the user. But if I do not want that, let me see boobs and stuff and connect with anyone on the fediverse.
Josias likes this.
... (FKA Gergely Nagy π)
in reply to Tio • • •This one does, yes. It's not the only one I run.
They technically can take care of themselves, yes. But it's much easier for everyone if they don't have to. Instead of 100+ people blocking the same things, a handful of them reporting to me, and me blocking is much more practical, and has the same net effect.
They see a bad post/user? They report. Done. For every single user, not just one.
I'm here to help my users, not make them do more work. It's better when they don't even see the bad.
... (FKA Gergely Nagy π)
in reply to ... (FKA Gergely Nagy π) • • •My users are aware of which instances I blocked. The list is publicly not available, but my users can take a look if they want to, and can decide themselves whether that's ok for them or not.
And I repeat, this is the crucial point: not seeing a lot of bad in the first place, but still being able to report and/or block at the user level gives a much nicer experience than just the latter.
It's like spam filters. Your users can filter their own spam. It works better if you do globally too.
Tio
in reply to ... (FKA Gergely Nagy π) • •... (FKA Gergely Nagy π)
in reply to Tio • • •Good thing is: you can do that! And my users who prefer all of this to be handled for them, so they don't have to deal with it, can have it our way.
Having both options available is great. If purely user-level blocking works for you, great! It doesn't for many of my users, so I block for them. Everyone wins.
The instances I block, my users would block them anyway, so the net effect is the same, and it doesn't break fedi. It just keeps bad actors in their corner. I call that a win.
Tio
in reply to ... (FKA Gergely Nagy π) • •... (FKA Gergely Nagy π)
in reply to Tio • • •That'd still require my users to use the list one by one. They don't want to deal with any of that. They delegate the blocking and the backlash that comes with it to me.
Having the option to block at an instance level makes this possible. An admin can choose not to use the feature, and defer to users to handle blocks themselves. Users can also ask their admin to do it for them.
Both methods have their pros and cons, neither is better than the other, they're suited for different scenarios.
Tio
in reply to ... (FKA Gergely Nagy π) • •... (FKA Gergely Nagy π)
in reply to Tio • • •All my users are fine with me blocking. They wouldn't sign up otherwise. So they effectively sign up for the blocklist. Practically the same effect.
Whoever comes to my instances, agrees with the blocking. It's right there in the rules of my other servers. They can choose to go elsewhere. If they come to mine, they're fine with the status quo.
Like I said, this is not the only instance I run.
... (FKA Gergely Nagy π)
in reply to Tio • • •Another scenario, which happened just last week: some of my users reported an abuser, I looked into it, blocked that single person on the instance level, so they don't harass others. People from their instance - including their admin - started to dogpile on me a few minutes after. So I blocked them on my account. Then they started to harass random users on my instance, people who never interacted with them before.
So I blocked the entire instance to avoid having my users harassed.
... (FKA Gergely Nagy π)
in reply to ... (FKA Gergely Nagy π) • • •If I didn't block at the instance level, they would've dogpiled on hundreds of users. It's not reasonable to expect them all to handle the fallout from other users blocking people as users.
This is where admins need to step in, and block the abusers hard.
Tio
in reply to ... (FKA Gergely Nagy π) • •... (FKA Gergely Nagy π)
in reply to Tio • • •You still don't get it. My users do not want to deal with it. They could, they choose not to. They come to my instance, because I deal with blocking, and the fallout.
No matter how easy it is to press a button, it has other consequences (see my dogpiling example earlier), possibly for other users too. They don't want to deal with that.
If I had an opt-in adblock, every user of mine would subscribe. So it's effectively an instance-wide block. Why bother with the extra steps then?
Tio
in reply to ... (FKA Gergely Nagy π) • •... (FKA Gergely Nagy π)
in reply to Tio • • •An adblock-like list many subscribe to does not prevent collateral damage. Those who subscribe to it, will end up blocking people and servers the same way an instance-wide block would.
All such a list accomplishes is some people not using them, at the cost of forcing everyone else into an extra step to opt into it.
Collateral damage will still be there. More burden on the users, too, and a larger attack surface. No thanks, we'll go with instance blocks, they're more practical for us.
... (FKA Gergely Nagy π)
in reply to ... (FKA Gergely Nagy π) • • •To reiterate: instance-wide blocks aren't the be-all, end-all solution. They don't work for every server, or every user, either. But they do work for a fair number of servers & users, usually on top of user-level blocking.
Same goes for user-level blocking.
Both have their pros and cons, both have their place. Neither is inherently better than the other, because they're better for different scenarios. Having them both gives us the flexibility to set things up as we wish.
Tio
in reply to ... (FKA Gergely Nagy π) • •They will, not you. That's better for whoever wants that.
Then make it opt-out. So much easier. No need for you to manage their lives.
... (FKA Gergely Nagy π)
in reply to Tio • • •I don't think that banning harassers is breaking the fediverse. Anyone who happened to be on a wrong instance by mistake, can easily move elsewhere, they're not tied to any one server, the protocol has a quite reasonable solution for migrating to another server to help with that, too.
Banning harassers at the instance level keeps my users happy, and on the fediverse. It makes Fedi a safer, happier place.
My users want to enjoy being here, not spend their time blocking. That's what I'm for
Tio
in reply to ... (FKA Gergely Nagy π) • •Easier said than done. Moving all the time is for sure not an easy task. Plus you never know who what banned.
Joel de Bruijn
in reply to ... (FKA Gergely Nagy π) • • •Otherwise (as mentioned by others int his thread) it introduces scaling problems.
Les say, there is an instance filled with 50% incels spreading hate.
Those other 50% lurking in to that, know what they signed up for.
I totally getting the whole instance blocked.
Alternative: instances federating on a allow-list basis instead of an block-list of other instances and be transparant about that.
Joel de Bruijn
in reply to Joel de Bruijn • • •Since this thread I do see examples where blocking seems extreme:
This rather polite conversation starting here:
gladtech.social/@Are0h@ubiquerβ¦
Let to this respons and below:
gladtech.social/@vesperto/1095β¦
Which let to an instance block:
ubiqueros.com/notes/98z37fr0mw
Ro (@Are0h)
Ubiqueros: A PV Jointlike this
Mark and Tio like this.
Mark reshared this.
ArneBab
in reply to Tio • • •clacke: exhausted pixie dream boy πΈπͺππ°ππ likes this.
Tio
in reply to ArneBab • •Mark likes this.
ArneBab
in reply to Tio • • •One person blocking 100 spammers vs. 100 people blocking 100 spammers each β thatβs 100 actions vs. 10.000 actions.
If your instance is so big that the moderator cannot decide whether something is spam, then your instance might be too big.
Or you need tools that scale better without centralizing control. Like the ones Freenet has: draketo.de/software/decentraliβ¦
The path towards decentralized moderation
www.draketo.deTio
in reply to ArneBab • •Mark likes this.
ArneBab
in reply to Tio • • •If you donβt like that, choose a different instance.
An instance can be a community, not only a service.
People can choose an instance precisely because of the rules of the instance.
Why should people who donβt like nudity not be able to organize on their own instance that blocks all nudity?
Tio
in reply to ArneBab • •I've heard that reply many times before: if you don't like it, go somewhere else. But this is irrelevant for what I am saying. I argue that the practice of banning instances by admins is detrimental to the entire fediverse. Same way you think banning nudity is ok because you have a little community of people who are afraid of nipples, others may think that being "gay" is detrimental to their own community. And so forth. And in the name of thousands, a dozen people will interrupt the communication. Let the "gays" talk to the nudists! You know what I mean!?
And I was showcasing the example of Peertube which provides a great set of tools to keep your instance clean and safe without nuking any bridge.
ArneBab
in reply to Tio • • •Letβs replace the nipples and gays with targeted insults and ganging up on people.
Do you understand what I mean?
If you donβt like that, have a look at the tools that actually provide scaling defense against spam and such which I linked in my previous post: rollenspiel.social/@ArneBab/10β¦
That said, I still think having instances with per-instance rules has value.
Your argument "banning is detrimental" doesnβt quite work, because in the Fediverse you can easily have several accounts.
Arne Babenhauserheide (@ArneBab@rollenspiel.social)
Die Heimat fΓΌr RollenspielerArneBab
in reply to ArneBab • • •And I have experienced how an attempted takeover by Neonazis feels. I want my instance-moderators to block those instantly and without remorse.
Similar has happened on Mastodon: blogghoran.se/2019/07/12/on-maβ¦
On Mastodon and Nazis | Blogghoran
blogghoran.seTio
in reply to ArneBab • •Joel de Bruijn
in reply to Tio • • •I can imagine some people having dejavus from Newsnet server messages about mailservers. And the perks of blocking a domain (federation-level) versus blocking a user (individual level).
Cant blame Fediverse for introducing moderation at the federation level (next to the individual level).
Joel de Bruijn
in reply to Tio • • •`
I can imagine moderating as a form of curation.
Like a community of schools operating peertube instances.
For pupils it would be very clear: if I go that instance I only see things my school offers as part of curricula without a myriad other vids.
Tio
in reply to Joel de Bruijn • •Joel de Bruijn
in reply to Tio • • •So non-promoted content from other instances dont show in search and accounts dont have access?
Tio
in reply to Joel de Bruijn • •Joel de Bruijn
in reply to Tio • • •Tio
in reply to Joel de Bruijn • •Joel de Bruijn
in reply to Tio • • •So the earlier upstream discussion in this thread stays the same.
And 'only promote what you want' doesnt solve it.
Tio
in reply to Joel de Bruijn • •Joel de Bruijn
in reply to Tio • • •I think every perspective is mentioned earlier so no need for me to repeat them.
If users seek a safe-heaven in the form of a partly isolated instance, let them.
Same goes for closed forums, closed social media groups in central systems.
Federating the system doesnt make this need obsolete all of a sudden.
Tio
in reply to Joel de Bruijn • •But you are missing my point too. Somehow. I didn't say you should not have that. I said this practice, used by so many and for no good reasons, is damaging the fediverse. While at the same time there are better approaches like I mentioned about Peertube. We should be wiser and think further ahead for this fediverse thing, so we don't break it. If a massive instance blocks left and right other instances, and people don't even know that, then it is complete madness and breaks what we call as the fediverse.
That's my point: the practice of banning entire instances at the admin level is a very rudimentary and in the long term harmful approach. We have better tools that won't create these side effects.
Joel de Bruijn
in reply to Tio • • •I think peer-2-peer is more suitable for what you want (censoring is routed around) then federation.
Moderating at the federation level is intrinsic to a federation, at least at a technical level. To compensate for that one need governance.
Which is hard for loosely coupled federation nodes. When a federation acts as a community its different, but thats not the case.
Tio
in reply to Joel de Bruijn • •Joel de Bruijn
in reply to Tio • • •If breaking is 'by design' I acknowledge the existence of good reasons.
anime graf stancil π°οΈπͺ
in reply to Tio • • •PonyPanda likes this.
G117CH
in reply to anime graf stancil π°οΈπͺ • • •anime graf stancil π°οΈπͺ
in reply to G117CH • • •G117CH
in reply to anime graf stancil π°οΈπͺ • • •Noided Β° ^ Β°
in reply to Tio • • •PonyPanda likes this.
Coon
in reply to Tio • • •@tio"Keep your instance clean?" There's a way to permanently keep out the fags, niggers, and jews????
Harry Nuggets likes this.
Tio
in reply to Coon • •Sandra
in reply to Tio • • •