#SocialCoop inline poll: should SocialCoop be one of the signatories of the [[Fedipact]] effort to *preemptively defederate* with Threads.net?
https://www.loomio.com/d/AZcJK6y2 is an ongoing Loomio discussion about this but I wanted to see some in-instance discussion ideally.
@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!
@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 #Fediverse as well as we can!
I would rather their first contact is with friendly open people and groups like those at #socialcoop
@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. https://help.instagram.com/477434105621119?ref=igtos&helpref=faq_content
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)
@3wordchant What do we gain in safety by defederating that we wouldn’t gain by limiting?
If we limit, then we will not see any Threads posts in the federated TL. If SC users decide to follow individual Threads accounts and boost any toxic bigotry into local, they’ll be in violation of our own internal codes of behavior and will be dealt with.
This does raise a new Q though. Are we in violation of rules if we quote boost something in order to critique it? Are CWs sufficient?
@ntnsndr @flancian
@jotaemei @3wordchant @flancian I think our rules and moderation team are wise enough to detect the difference between affirmation and critique.
Thanks for these points.
@ntnsndr I worded that concern poorly. Yes, I expect as much from our rules and moderation team, but I was thinking still about how even quote boosted posts could be triggering for some members, and if we should have some guidelines for those cases. @3wordchant @flancian