Fosstodon decided not to defederate from Threads, deferring to the ability of each user to individually block
https://hub.fosstodon.org/our-position-on-threads
This is disappointing in a big way. To me, this is equivalent to saying that we allow transphobic content in the local timeline because you can block offending users yourself.
It is the lack of a position, the avoidance of a decision. I hope the admin team revisit this soon.
@chrisg I struggle to see how this comparison is at all relevant.
What people want ("no interaction with threads-dot-net") can be achieved with a user-initiated server block as good as with a server-to-server defederation. Only the latter is a forceful opt-in for everyone with no opt-out possibility.
Fosstodon (or rather Mastodon, the software) lets you be flexible. You can block Threads and pretend it doesn't exist, but not break anyone's experience. Isn't this a win-win?
@kytta Let me put it this way:
Why is this discussion happening? Why should fosstodon defederate from Threads in the first place?
It's the new moderation policy from Meta, right? Instances will be defederated if they are found to be bad. That's why already a whole bunch of instances are blocked by fosstodon.
If "you can do it on your own" was an actual solution, then no server blocks would be necessary. But they are. So _not_ blocking is a choice.
I disagree with this choice.
@kytta @chrisg Not for people being in a bad group that will have to actually get abused before they realise that they can block the domain, it's why we block stuff on an instance level, would you for example be okay with getting child porn in your feed because you have not yet blocked a bad instance?
You can block the CP instance and pretend it doesn't exist, but not break anyone's experience. Isn't that a win-win?
Basically this is not about priviledged people like you and me, but about protecting the people that aren't, I for one care about those.
@kytta no, it's not a win-win it's a shit take
What a shame. The "you do you" position totally misunderstands the danger of how hatred spreads:
https://social.chinwag.org/@FediThing/112581263140051643
Hatred needs to be blocked by everyone, to prevent it radicalising people and recruiting more dangerous bigots.
@chrisg Are they at least silencing threads?
@linos I have no insight further to what the blog post provides, so I assume no limiting.
@chrisg That's what we wen't for, but we might reconsider that decision in our next meeting. However, we haven't received a single report yet of a threads account (maybe due to the silencing/limited federation mode).
@chrisg The new moderation policy of Meta means Threads is in breach of the Mastodon Server Covenant. That calls for instance-level blocks.
@foolishowl Based purely on the content of https://joinmastodon.org/covenant, I understand that moderation is necessary for being listed in joinmastodon's instance picker, which threads.net isn't.
Is it true that this also means that such instances should be blocked? Is that documented somewhere or is it more of an unwritten rule?
@chrisg I think some instances have adherence to the Covenant as a formal policy, but in general I think it's understood among most moderators I've talked to that this is the minimum standard for federation.
@foolishowl TIL, thank you.