social.coop is one of the many independent Mastodon servers you can use to participate in the fediverse.
A Fediverse instance for people interested in cooperative and collective projects. If you are interested in joining our community, please apply at https://join.social.coop/registration-form.html.

Administered by:

Server stats:

503
active users

inline poll: should SocialCoop be one of the signatories of the [[Fedipact]] effort to *preemptively defederate* with Threads.net?

loomio.com/d/AZcJK6y2 is an ongoing Loomio discussion about this but I wanted to see some in-instance discussion ideally.

LoomioDiscussion: Support the Anti-Meta Fedi PactFor some time, there have been rumors that Meta (Facebook) has plans to impose itself on the Fediverse. These rumors have recently been confirmed, with the news that Meta is developing a clone of Mastodon, referred to as "Project 92", "Barcelona", or "Threads", and that it has had a meeting with the administrators of several large Mastodon instances, possibly including Eugen Rochko, while silencing them with a non-disclosure agreement.Meta is an oligopoly that has aggressively sought to control social media, through absorption of other social media companies, and through policies of "embrace, extend, and extinguish", as with the RSS and XMPP protocols. Meta, through Facebook, is infamous for condoning the spread of far right ideology and of dangerous misinformation.There have been calls for pre-emptively blocking Meta's project. In particular, @vantablack@beach.city, administrator of a small Mastodon instance, beach.city, has proposed the Anti-Meta Fedi Pact.https://fedipact.online/I see our best hope in collective resistance.Therefore, I would like us to discuss whether we should support this move, and if so, how best to do so. As a starting point for discussion, I suggest the following:<br>Social.Coop commits to blocking any Fediverse instances that Meta creates.<br>We, as a body, sign the Anti-Meta Fedi Pact.<br>We follow up by collectively drafting and issuing a public statement.<br>(As I have not been active in Social.Coop discussions, I hope that the way I am presenting this is appropriate, and I welcome constructive criticism.)

@flancian I thinking "limit" option is the best choice for us, and I think that prevents us from being a signatory.

@ntnsndr thanks for your input -- I think I agree!

@flancian @ntnsndr I'm curious: are you unaware of the huge volumes of content on Threads which is against the social.coop rules / code of conduct? or do you think Facebook deserves an exception to defederation for some reason?

@3wordchant @ntnsndr thank you so much for raising this point!

I am unaware of the fraction involved, and you're right I should be made aware. I am also unaware in detail of the position of [[threads]] w.r.t. blocking well-defined subsets of users en masse, which is the direction I think we should go in in the general case of very large instances that cater to large diverse populations while maintaining a reasonable approximation of a rational pro-social ethical stance in the case of conflicts.

@3wordchant @ntnsndr in general I just want to try to think first, as a community, of the large number of *people* who are in [[threads]] because that's where they friends are, for example -- and how to help them onboard to the as well as we can!

I would rather their first contact is with friendly open people and groups like those at

@3wordchant @ntnsndr of course no tolerance for fascists goes without saying?

@flancian @3wordchant Unfortunately I think there is need for treating Threads a bit differently than other instances, given that is so large and varied. Despite its failures of enforcement and policy, there is at least a bare-bones policy against hate speech, which distinguishes it from platforms that actively encourage such things. help.instagram.com/47743410562

The problems it poses should be weighed against the benefits, esp. enabling our members to reach a larger network of people.

@flancian @3wordchant I don't think we have much leverage against Threads by refusal to federate with our few hundred members. In contrast, being visible on threads could help more people there see the option of doing social media cooperatively.

Unlike a space like Gab, most people are joining Threads simply by default, and are not directly associating with the accounts you mention.

I think limiting, is an appropriate compromise.

@ntnsndr I don't see how the implication that we'd federate with Gab if it had a few million more non-bigoted users is in line with s.c's Federation Abuse Policy.

Folks who want to do outreach to Threads (or Gab) users are completely able to sign up for accounts on those platforms if they like; going back to "balance" it seems obvious that s.c users' safety is more important than making life slightly more convenient for that subset of users who want to evangelise in that way (1/2)

@flancian

@ntnsndr a core strength of the fediverse, and part of the explicit agreement with s.c users, has been to have better moderation (and thus more community safety) than corporate equivalents. Twitter has been a great example of the importance of upholding standards of behaviour, through the rapidly increasing toxicity on the platform after those standards were relaxed in the name of including problematic voices (2/2)

CC @flancian

Nathan Schneider

@3wordchant @flancian I think it is a good point that this may require a policy change.

Since Gab does not have a recognizable hate speech policy, no, I don't think a large number of users there would change our approach.

I think the availability of a tool like limiting allows us to make an appropriate choice. In my view social media should never be entirely on-or-off, just like social life should not be. People are complex, and the fediverse should reflect that.

@3wordchant @flancian simple shunning (like sanctions, etc) tends to do more harm than good in other aspects of social life. I think outright banning is less than ideal online too. As the fediverse evolves, I hope the tools improve for enabling self-defense, collective action, and more fine-grained accountability.

@ntnsndr & as a long-time practitioner of Transformative Justice, I agree w/ you that fixing the structures causing harm, & working with people to improve their behaviour, is better than simply pushing them away. But that requires a process in place, & willingness from the people causing harm to work with that process. Here, neither exists, so defederation is a necessary safety measure – likewise even groups with a strong commitment to TJ still exclude members when necessary (2/2)

CC @flancian

@3wordchant @flancian right, I know the studies and evidence. But that is based on the current tools available in online life, where censorship and exile are basically all the tools allow. I have argued with others to explore better options, eg: journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.11

@ntnsndr thanks for the paper, I'll read it as soon as I can.

Meanwhile, I fully agree with you that it will be helpful to have better tools.

In the mean-time, while those tools are built, and given that you are familiar with the evidence of deplatforming in reducing harmful behaviour, why do you think it is better not to use the (sure, blunt) tools available? (1/2)

CC @flancian

@ntnsndr Do you think there might be some component of personal privilege in your preference for this approach, and do you see any potential exclusionary impact in applying that preference to a community space that intends/claims to be welcoming to people who face more marginalisation than you do? (2/2)

CC @flancian

@3wordchant @flancian perhaps. That's why we have had discussions in the co-op about this for months. But the question cuts both ways. For some dynamics of marginalization, being cut off from the wider world is a privilege. For instance, I can only prioritize S.c these days because I no longer have a job that correlates my income to social media reach.