this post was submitted on 11 Jun 2023
83 points (100.0% liked)
Asklemmy
43945 readers
859 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy π
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Getting banned in one subreddit you never participated in for daring to have a comment (regardless of the content of that comment) in another subreddit.
I see the same shit in the Fediverse though. Mastodon admins blocking a server just because they refused to participate in a shared block list.
Someoneβs going to make a script to ban a non-local user based on your remote posts, I guarantee it.
Which is important if you don't want the Fediverse to become the next Voat.
Can you please explain?
Proactively banning problematic users before they cause issues is necessary. Prevention is better than cure.
Ah, the old guilt by association groupthink.
This is a ridiculous response. I think autobanning people who common "killthejews@ss.gov" is probably a good idea.
You're making a strawman argument and putting words in my mouth.
Explain your position, then.
Blocking a server because they don't share your blocklist takes the Fedi out of the Fediverse.
Eye-for-an-eye makes the whole world blind.
Isn't the federated model specifically designed as a solution to undesired moderation? If a server is ban happy, users won't go there. Problem solved?
The fact that opening a new instance still requires some technical knowledge is a difficulty facing the fediverse, since the venn diagram of people with the time and know-how to manage server administration and people who are knowledgeable on community moderation aren't always two concentric circles.
But that's not a task that is asked of a general user, even if their goal is to switch servers. If you don't like gmail, the solution for an individual is almost never to start your own email server.
Correct. What i'm saying is that since federated networks tend to be more community run initiatives, moderators are gonna be people from within the community and the final say on moderation issues is gonna come from those who understand how the fediverse works and have done the work of setting up the servers that everyone is using. Which I'm sure can and has worked for plenty of Mastodon and Lemmy instances out there, but I'm sure there's also instances where the head admin simply went haywire one day and nuked everything. It's not that the system can' work, it's just that it isn't really designed to gravitate towards experienced trust and safety experts being the ones that important decisions fall upon.
I feel like I should clarify that I have nothing against any Lemmy mods or admins. They're all being cool and helpful with onboarding reddit refugees like myself. I just think that this is an important thing to think about if we want this place to support more and more people and a growing number of communities in the future.
What mastodon server(s)?