@fallerOfFalls The targets are very different.

With the AGPLv3, I am largely excluding corporations with specific business models, and some (IMO misguided) zealots who prioritise developer freedoms over end-user freedoms. I'm OK with that.

Safe-space instances are excluding people, not just for bad behaviour, but also for who they associate with.

That may be justified in small doses for specific communities, but it IMO would be wrong to run everything that way.

@fallerOfFalls Another thing, related to your original question - as a relatively privileged person who doesn't need the protection provided by a safe space, I think I will do the overall cause of "being excellent to each other" more good by being out here trying to set a good example.

Preaching to the choir doesn't accomplish much.

You don't convince people to change their ways by avoiding contact with them.

@HerraBRE I wonder if there is (or could be) a way for safe-space instances to block content boosted from certain instances, while still federating with instances that federate with the blocked instance?

I'm assuming that the reason for requiring others to not federate with undesirables, is to prevent content from undesirables from being seen on awoo. In which case, it's really just a work around for a technical problem, though I can't find an issue for it???

@fallerOfFalls I am pretty sure @maloki said recently that boosted content circumventing blocks was a bug that they expect to fix.

@fallerOfFalls @HerraBRE silenced servers content gets boosted, suspended/blocked should not.

There's a distinction between the two, which some people don't make in their discourse.

@maloki @HerraBRE so content from instances that awoo isn't federated with could never end up on awoo, even via a boost?

But could toots from awoo get boosted to then be seen on instances that awoo isn't federated with?

@fallerOfFalls I also think you're being a tiny bit naive when you say it's just a workaround for a technical issue.

It is very clear that some people want to use blocks as a way to pressure instances into policing their communities in particular ways. The technicalities are, in part, an excuse for power games.

Some of those may be easily justified and for honourable reasons, but that's still what they are. 😱

@bob @fallerOfFalls The counterpoint to that, is that when there are no rules then the weakest suffer.

Having a hierarchy isn't always a bad thing. Having rules isn't always a bad thing. Even having a benevolent dictator can be a great solution, as long as it lasts.

Extremes tend to be wrong, no matter which direction they take.

@bob @fallerOfFalls Trouble is assured either way.

Your "no rulers" utopia has no provisions to deal with assholes, let alone mobs of assholes who mobilise of their own volition to mistreat other people.

As soon as people start working together - whether on defense or offense or just creative projects, you get hierarchies and rulers, defacto or otherwise.

That's humanity.

@bob @fallerOfFalls Now we're getting pretty philosophical, but I'd like to point out that these large bureaucratic structures aren't pure evil.

They're the reason we're not mostly dead of measles, the reason we have CPUs with billions of transistors and the reasons violent crime is probably at its lowest point in all of recorded history.

Just sayin'. Working together, at scale, does have a few advantages. 😎

@HerraBRE @bob @fallerOfFalls Iron Law of Oligarchy, Robert Michelss, "Political Parties", 1911.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_law_of_oligarchy

@HerraBRE @bob @fallerOfFalls When there are rules then the weakest suffer in a privilege structure reinforced against opposition. Bullies gang up too, and the top of any hierarchy is irresistible to them. When they get the mantle of legitimacy, they use it to enable their own bullying while silencing and punishing opposition.

@HerraBRE @bob @fallerOfFalls I agree. Rules and hierarchies are a necessary part of human society, and as you say, without rules the weakest suffer in a free-for-all. Since rules are hard to enforce without hierarchies, we need them also. We may not always like the rules and hierarchies, but not having them would be worse. The good thing about Mastodon is that we can choose which instance to use, and each instance has its own rules.

@fallerOfFalls @bob @HerraBRE And because of the ability of users to choose instances, we can have the advantages of benevolent dictatorship (long-term thinking, stability, a general care for the community even if not everyone agrees) without the disadvantages (potential for tyranny/repression) because users can choose their dictator through choosing an instance. If the dictator goes too far everyone can leave and the dictator can't stop them.

@bob @fallerOfFalls @HerraBRE Its true that the rules are often stacked against the weak, but equally, without rules, the weak suffer because unfortunately the strong will ride roughshod over the weak in a free-for-all contest. As long as rules are clear and enforced fairly, rules give the weak a chance. Problems occur when the rules are applied selectively (an in-between worst of both worlds that's unfortunately fairly common in the world)

@bob @fallerOfFalls @HerraBRE So ignoring for the minute the fact that you can block them what's to stop someone setting up their own instance and harassing others? You can't kick them off their own instance and as has been pointed out the whole system is federated, how do you exclude them from the federation?

What constitutes harassment anyway? Continually belittling someone? Personal insults? Name calling?
More: https://pastebin.com/882k0sQp

@bob @fallerOfFalls @HerraBRE I don't think I like that idea. Smacks of Elitism to me. Or the Eloi and Morlocks. :-)

@pettter @lnxw48a1
*I can only answer for myself*

While I suspect lots would find your second example highly offensive I would have to say that while I disagree with that statement I would die defending your right to say it. Without freedom of speech Totalitarianism and censure creeps in.

@pettter @lnxw48a1 What I mean is you will end up with a small group who will meet out justice to users for the most pathetic of reasons or for reasons of cronyism.

While I agree bullying ect. needs to be stamped out I cannot fathom why supposed victims don't block their so called tormentors? It's not rocket science.

@pettter @lnxw48a1 No, I don't think they are. We're humans after all. It's a nice idea that we attain some sort of Nirvana but I won't hold my breath. ;-)

@pettter @lnxw48a1 "Absolute power corrupts absolutely" -- John Dalberg-Acton, 1st Baron Acton

Hell I've even seen people who've signed the Code of Conduct piss all over it while in a blind rage and still to this day they've not made amends for it.

Every day we see some government, police force etc. etc. hauled over the coals for abuse of power or privilege. why should a social media board be any different?

@pettter @lnxw48a1 I think your deliberately twisting my words but I think you know very well what I mean. C'est la guerre

I have no desire to be on a 'Safe list' I'll take my chances with the commoners. :-)

@pettter @lnxw48a1 You should join our government. They too would like to control the Internet just like you want to control Mastodon. Your comment of "productive conversations " leads me to suspect you feel more at home on a developers list maybe even the Linux Kernel list where "Off Topic" is considered a worse crime than murder.

More. https://pastebin.com/DsgPn4ie

@pettter @dick_turpin @lnxw48a1

Premise: "if blocked, harassers will create new accounts to continue harassing"

Then it would make sense to block as the first test in determining whether something is harassment, vs argument or misunderstanding.

If a block ends the interaction, then it seems to me it probably wasn't harassment.

I think the idea that every interaction that goes south is abuse might become a self fulfilling prophecy.

@frankiesaxx @pettter @lnxw48a1 Ermm? I think my response is "yeah" but I'm not 100% sure. :-)

More importantly **UNICORNS!** :-)

@dick_turpin That's how I win all my arguments on the internet. :) @pettter @lnxw48a1

@dick_turpin @pettter @lnxw48a1

My observation, from a long time on the internet, is the majority of the time, ongoing harassment and abuse complaints often stem from a bad interaction that neither person will drop.

The people involved are generally both just normal people, but they can't let it go. Instead they *both* keep talking about each other and justify continuing to respond as self-defense. And then other people take sides...

@lnxw48a1 @pettter @dick_turpin

I guess what I'm saying is I don't think punitive retribution is a good model for governing social interactions. For a lot of reasons that I can't fit in 500 characters.

I think what we need is a system for de-escalating and diffusing situations *before* they turn into online gang warfare between a random soccer mom and college student.

Reserve network blocks for dealing with organized abuse, raids etc

@frankiesaxx @pettter @lnxw48a1 You are a very wise Unicorn. I like what you have written. I agree with what you have written, I shall now look for you on the web to follow you more. (Or you can give me some links to save my valuable time?) You sound liker my kind of Unicorn.

@dick_turpin twitter is @frankiesaxx also :)

@bob @fallerOfFalls @HerraBRE I see the #PlatformCoop model as super applicable to the "who makes the rules?" question. Admins serving the will of the users, not ruling them - though there is still much exploration to be done around how to best govern a #democratic #instance at scale: http://www.shareable.net/blog/6-ideas-on-how-millions-of-users-can-own-and-govern-twitter

@HerraBRE you may well be right about this. I will have to investigate.

@HerraBRE Results of my investigation so far:
https://octodon.social/@fallerOfFalls/1564210