• EmperorHenry@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Supporting free speech means allowing people you hate to talk too. Censor a Nazi one day, then the next day it’s something your weird friend likes, then the next day it’s something you like.

    Everyone deserves a platform online, but they have to earn their audience. Censoring them is only going to make more people want to go to other platforms to hear and see what they have to say.

    • bedrooms@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      That’s just common misconception. Free speech is there to protect people from the government, not business. If my anti-racism voice gets suppressed on Threads (assuming I ever make an account there) I’d just move to another platform.

      And really, there’s no good reason for a well-intended internet community to allow racism expand.

    • MiscreantMouse@kbin.socialOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      The right to free speech is drawn from a US constitutional amendment, which says the US government can’t censor speech, but it has nothing to do with private platforms like this, much less individual responses to Nazi rhetoric. Nobody owes hate speech a free platform.

      • EmperorHenry@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        But these private platforms have a liability shield. If they have a liability shield, they shouldn’t be allowed to censor things.

        • MiscreantMouse@kbin.socialOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          they shouldn’t be allowed to censor things

          I disagree, and so does US law. Abusive material shouldn’t be spread just because it can be.

    • elscallr@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      It doesn’t mean you have to give them the platform, though. If they want to create their own Nazi federation that’s entirely on them, but you don’t have to integrate their content.

      • EmperorHenry@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        If these companies are going to control what’s on their platform then they shouldn’t get a liability shield.

        They’re a bookstore censoring the content of the books they have in the store.

        If you don’t like what someone has to say online you don’t have to click on their profiles or follow them or read what they’re saying.

    • jocanib@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      If all instances defederate it will force people to hand their data over to Zuckerberg to access the bigger network, and they will have no control over what shite the algorithm pushes into their timeline.

      There’s a very good case for some instances to defederate. All of them defederating would be a terrible mistake.

      • 00@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        There is no strategical alliance to be made with Meta. That company literally complicitly hosted the platform for a genovide to be planned.. There is no outsmarting, strategic federating or any sudden interest on their side involved. Its all a plot to wring people out in the most heinous way they can get away with.

        What exactly would any fediverse user be getting out of this? Why would Meta have any interest in giving us anything, even attention?

        • jocanib@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          You’re not addressing anything I said.

          Do I have to write “Meta is evil” as a preface to every comment?

          Meta does not need the Fediverse. In terms of user numbers, we’re a rounding error. It has no need to embrace in order to extinguish. Pootling about on your high horse demanding the Fediverse become a monolith (FFS) will do absolutely nothing to stop them.

          If the Fediverse universally defederates it will force millions of users who want/need a larger network to hand their data over to Meta and the Fediverse will die for everyone who wasn’t on it before October 2022.

          There are no good choices here. But there are some absolutely daft ones.

          • 00@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            You’re not addressing anything I said.

            I was trying to say that you arent being creative enough in imagining the awful plans they might have for federation. There is no winning with Meta. The best move is not to play.

            Meta does not need the Fediverse. In terms of user numbers, we’re a rounding error. It has no need to embrace in order to extinguish.

            Companies arent actually that rational in this regard. I completely agree that the fediverse is not a threat in any possible meaning of that word, but that doesnt mean Meta wouldnt like to have its feelers on us or destroy the protocol.

            If the Fediverse universally defederates it will force millions of users who want/need a larger network to hand their data over to Meta and the Fediverse will die for everyone who wasn’t on it before October 2022.

            Defederation just means that Threads is blocked from viewing/interacting with fediverse servers. Right now, Threads is deferated (because it cant interact), but simply because they havent set it up yet. People can still learn about the fediverse and join up whenever they want. I dont think I understand your point.

            • jocanib@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago

              Defederation just means that Threads is blocked from viewing/interacting with fediverse servers. Right now, Threads is deferated (because it cant interact), but simply because they havent set it up yet. People can still learn about the fediverse and join up whenever they want. I dont think I understand your point.

              My point is that the Fediverse is growing because of exiles from Twitter and Reddit. The vast majority of those users want/need a bigger network than is currently available on the Fediverse to get the breadth and depth of content that was on those sites.

              If all instances defederate, then many of those users will reluctantly hand their data over to Zuckerberg instead. The vast majority of them already have through Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp etc.

              Meta might well want to murder us but universal defederation is just committing suicide instead. It’s the wrong tactic.

              My hope is that Threads sticks with a shitty algorithmic feed and bombards people with corporate bullshit, and its users find out that independent instances exist and will give them more control.

              My other hope is that other mega-corps (Google, Mozilla, etc) open up their own instances and end up holding each other hostage because it’s so easy for their users to jump ship to a competitor.

              It’s a difficult situation to be sure but universal defederation is giving up without a fight.

              • 00@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 year ago

                The vast majority of those users want/need a bigger network than is currently available on the Fediverse to get the breadth and depth of content that was on those sites.

                Disclaimer, i havent used Threads. But everything i’ve seen from it was just influencer spam, grifting and corporate twitter. I dont think i want that kind of content. Quite the opposite, this is the reason i chose the fediverse.

                My hope is that Threads sticks with a shitty algorithmic feed and bombards people with corporate bullshit, and its users find out that independent instances exist and will give them more control.

                Why would anyone sign up for those instances if they can just look at that stuff from Threads? Furthermore, it would actually make things more difficult, because explaining the fediverse to people that are coming from a corporate social media but that have already had fediverse content is just going to turn them away. It would be far more comfortable for them to just continue using threads.
                Thirdly, it would also influence the federated instances. All the influencer spam and brand bs thats going on over there would also end up on the fediverse.
                And lastly, we dont have to win over every user and every bit of content. The fediverse isnt some VC funded social media that requires unlimited growth. If there is nothing good to grow into, it can just stay the size it is and be fine. I dont get the constant arguments for growth if the new content would be the worst social media can offer and the users would be facebook tier grifters.

                • Ferk@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  I dont think i want that kind of content. Quite the opposite, this is the reason i chose the fediverse.

                  That’s your personal preference. What you call spam others may call content. I expect if your favorite personality / organization / news-provider joined Threads and started posting content there that you don’t consider “spam” then it being in Threads would be an annoyance.

                  I believe kbin doesn’t have it yet, but some fediverse platforms offer the option to block a particular instance from your feed without limiting everyone else. So that would be an alternative. Even if by default it added Threads in the blocklist of everyone.

                  I expect you do see some value on federation (seeing how you seem to be participating in some communities beyond your home instance), so I think the question “why would anyone sign up if they can just use Threads” would answer itself if you don’t assume everyone shares your preference.

                  And it’s perfectly fine if those people turned away by the fediverse don’t join. Personally, I don’t think we should be trying to get everyone to join at all costs or anything like that.

  • HandsHurtLoL@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Hm, yeah I guess no one has been speculating about this part of the de/federate Threads reality. Everyone’s worried about Meta and EEE, but what we should have really been discussing is the history of Meta moderation and community guidelines which have often cited “free speech” when people use white supremacist dog whistling but cite “calls to violence” when people of color actively complain about white supremacy.

    There’s a reason why we have seen news articles about large LEO Facebook groups trading and making joke comments on racist memes…

    We were worried about the technology, but we should have been worried about cultural infiltration.

    • Kichae@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Oh, we haven’t been speculating about moderation because that’s a known quantity. A major driver of defederarion discussion on the microblogging side of the fedi has been about the moderation issues that people would have to deal with if federated with Threads. And especially about bad actors on Threads getting posts from users on defederated instances via intermediary sites, and then spotlighting vulnerable people to trolls on other instances.

      It’s why many niche Mastodon instances are talking about defederating from any other site not blocking Threads. It’s a significant mental safety risk for vulnerable people in the alt-right’s sights.

      • HandsHurtLoL@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I’m not an “early adopter” of the Fediverse per se, but I came over on the reddit migration on June 11. I feel like I’ve been an information sponge trying to wrap my head around the organization of the Fediverse and seeing the benefits. I think I’m pretty up to speed, at least enough to discuss it with people offline and explain it in a way that does it some justice.

        But I don’t think I’ve seen a lot of discussion about the drawbacks of the Fediverse. I’ve seen a few threads about major privacy concerns related to the Fediverse, but most of the comments responding just kind of hand wave the issue.

        Seeing a possible larger issue here regarding the moderation issues, I can’t see anything other than a total containment of Threads away from other instances. Like, great - use ActivityPub, but don’t talk to me (kbin.social) or my child (literally everything else that wants to interact together in the Fediverse with kbin) again. Lol

    • MiscreantMouse@kbin.socialOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Exactly. What happens when a far-right troll like libsoftiktok sics thousands of rabid followers on a fediverse account? I get the feeling our small, volunteer group of moderators just don’t have the resources to cover that kind of brigading.

        • MiscreantMouse@kbin.socialOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Nope, she has repeatedly had posts reinstated after being initially flagged for hate speech, including that one. Meta knows their audience.

      • HandsHurtLoL@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Also, I don’t think moderation can even stop brigading or the downvotes to hell avalanche. It could only stop thread and comment creation on just your one community/magazine on your instance.

        Nothing could stop a bad faith actor from finding my comments on a different instance and harassing or brigading me there if that instance federated with Threads, even if my instance defederate from Threads.

        This Fediverse stuff is… complex.

        • sab@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Well, at least downvotes isn’t going to be much of a problem, as threads users will only be capable of upcoming stuff they see here. They don’t have a downvote button. :)

          • Ragnell@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            They will be able to send swarms of trolls to harass. If Threads does even federate, I suspect even admins who didn’t sign the fedipact will defederate quite fast.

            • sab@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              The way the Fediverse is designed you need to actively seek out content. It’s not going to be all that easy being a troll from threads attacking content on the Fediverse.

              What I could imagine is that bigots might seek out LGTBQIA+ hashtags (along with hashtags related to other culture war dimensions), and find content from the Fediverse that way,

              Then again, if that proves to be a problem, sites like Blahaj will probably be pretty darn quick to defederate. And this type of content, even when posted by kbin or Lemmy.world users or whatever, will probably often take place in communities hosted by instances like blahaj. So the thread trolls would find themselves isolated from the discussion pretty fast.

              On the other hand, there’s a bunch of queer people who use threads. If all servers immediately defederate from it, these people will never get to have a glimpse into the fediverse. They could benefit a lot from joining a different platform, but if we focus only on the bigots we’ll end up never reaching them.

              The same logic of course applies to other communities affected by the anti woke culture war bullshit, I’m just too lazy to come up with a more original example. :)

              • Ragnell@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 year ago

                I don’t know, a lot of us found our way here from Reddit and Twitter without being federated.

                • sab@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  That’s different though - it’s going here and actively creating a user and settling. Interactions with Mastodon users are mostly limited to special interest groups and microblogs I feel, even though we’re all in the same network.

  • gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    I mean… I wasn’t expecting this to not happen eventually… I’m just surprised it happened so quickly, and that Meta has done nothing in terms of mitigation - and moreover, didn’t see this as a thing they’d need to guard against out of the gates (unless, I suppose, this isn’t intended to be a Twitter clone, and it’s more shooting for being a Parler clone).

    There’s probably a lesson somewhere in there about the benefits of growing your userbase organically instead of trying to force-march users over by creating shadow accounts, but applying that lesson would be unprofitable, so Meta definitely won’t care.