Ancestors

Toot

Written by Laurens Hof on 2025-01-10 at 17:59

@tchambers Hey Tim, can we get an official statement on what indieweb.social's policy is regarding federating with Threads moving forward?

I am not comfortable that the server is federating with Meta, considering what has happened this week. I think we should not federate with a server that actively promotes harm this way. Federation decisions should also be made on the grounds of the ethics of the other entity that we're federating with, and not only on grounds of specific post violations.

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from laurenshof@indieweb.social

Descendants

Written by Laurens Hof on 2025-01-10 at 18:02

@tchambers I am personally not interested in an argument that indieweb has not seen any harmful posts by members of Threads. My concern is with Meta itself, and I see their policy changes as a form of hate speech. I think the policy of Indieweb should take this into consideration, and not only look at specific accounts on Threads causing harm. The presence of Meta itself is what causing the harm, as it brings a bad company into this space.

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from laurenshof@indieweb.social

Written by Laurens Hof on 2025-01-10 at 18:08

@tchambers I'm sure you've seen all the news, but still, these are main reasons I'm making this request on:

By far the most important one:

• Meta explicitly allowing hate speech against lgtbq+ people and immigrants on their platforms. https://theintercept.com/2025/01/09/facebook-instagram-meta-hate-speech-content-moderation/

Secondary reasons to show that Meta is actively hateful:

https://www.404media.co/meta-deletes-trans-and-nonbinary-messenger-themes/

https://bsky.app/profile/mikeisaac.bsky.social/post/3lffqgewwgk2v

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from laurenshof@indieweb.social

Written by Tim Chambers on 2025-01-10 at 20:30

@laurenshof Coming this weekend. Stay tuned.

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from tchambers@indieweb.social

Written by Tim Chambers on 2025-01-11 at 00:00

Yes, here it is: https://www.timothychambers.net/2025/01/10/moderating-threads-at-a-server.html

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from tchambers@indieweb.social

Written by Laurens Hof on 2025-01-11 at 13:48

@tchambers thanks for the official statement!

Disappointed in the choice though. I much prefer to block Threads, but if we dont block Threads I think keeping federation open is preferable to limiting Threads. Limiting Threads still frames the problem as one of content moderation, not a problem with the entity Meta itself. Will write a longer response after the weekend

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from laurenshof@indieweb.social

Written by Kuba Suder • @mackuba.eu on 🦋 on 2025-01-11 at 14:49

@laurenshof @tchambers I'm curious to read your thoughts on this, because I feel like limiting is a good choice, one that still leaves users in control instead of arbitrarily making a decision who they can follow for them

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from mackuba@martianbase.net

Written by {Insert Pasta Pun} on 2025-01-11 at 15:03

@mackuba @laurenshof @tchambers I'm also curious if there are other options not yet available that would be acceptable (e.g. besides limit)

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from risottobias@tech.lgbt

Written by Whiskers The Great and Terrible on 2025-01-11 at 15:09

@risottobias @tchambers @laurenshof @mackuba I’m a big fan of letting users pick what’s right for them over telling people what’s good for them.

Users can block the domain should they wish and servers should publish clear instructions on how users can block a domain.

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from phil@thesatelliteoflove.com

Written by {Insert Pasta Pun} on 2025-01-11 at 15:11

@phil @tchambers @laurenshof @mackuba right, but could there be cooler UI/UX designs for that?

e.g. letting a user pick:

"when my instance says a domain is bad, auto-hide it in my mentions until I get around to approving/disapproving a full block"

or

[insert cool UI/UX story here]

or

"run extra filtering on these domains, check reputation with peers before allowing interaction"

or

"auto-recommend the bullet point of my choice based on what X, Y, Z friends chose to do with an account"

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from risottobias@tech.lgbt

Written by Whiskers The Great and Terrible on 2025-01-11 at 15:18

@mackuba @risottobias @tchambers @laurenshof I’d love an effective reputation based system! I see some challenges though:

• It kind of becomes a Social Credit Score if implemented at a per user level

• At a domain level it becomes a blanket statement (users on an instance are not a monolith)

• You would need context (some people like content y, some don’t like content y)

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from phil@thesatelliteoflove.com

Written by {Insert Pasta Pun} on 2025-01-11 at 15:34

@phil I think there was a cool flow chart of:

include context / who reported it -> people blame the reporter, and the list

don't include context -> people blame the list

like either you're subscribed to the list because you trust their judgement, or you don't

I guess per-instance blocking is a very lossy version of social credit scores

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from risottobias@tech.lgbt

Written by Whiskers The Great and Terrible on 2025-01-11 at 15:36

@risottobias I get that, but even people I trust may not share the exact same views as me

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from phil@thesatelliteoflove.com

Written by {Insert Pasta Pun} on 2025-01-11 at 15:37

@phil fair.

I'm curious about exploring different modalities and trade-offs for that.

I kinda want to have a kitchen sink where people can do testbeds of trying to plug in one approach and then another

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from risottobias@tech.lgbt

Written by Tim Chambers on 2025-01-11 at 15:16

@risottobias @mackuba @laurenshof what type are you thinking of?

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from tchambers@indieweb.social

Written by {Insert Pasta Pun} on 2025-01-11 at 15:18

@tchambers @mackuba @laurenshof open ended ideas, wild UI/UX things, potential dead ends, bad ideas, brilliant ideas you wish existed,

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from risottobias@tech.lgbt

Written by Tim Chambers on 2025-01-11 at 15:13

@laurenshof Hi Laurens: I welcome that response! And always open to consider new choices here!

But I would suggest - at least in my view - I didn’t consider this in a frame that is purely a “moderation only” choice - but at least in my mind it is a proportional response to the problem.

A moderation only, harm prevention only choice might not even limit yet - as we have seen zero issues with Threads at this point here - not a single ticket.

But open to consider new choices.

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from tchambers@indieweb.social