[Stephen304]

Problematic users do tend to congregate on certain servers because they keep getting banned from better moderated ones. Eventually they find the ones that won't ban them, and now well moderated instances have an easy target to block them wholesale. That's how you end up with instances like explodingheads.

[jojobas]

The only caveat is that what's well moderated and what's not depends on who you ask.

[Stephen304]

It doesn't really matter whether the entire world agrees, only that each community comes to an agreement. Mastodon.social collectively agrees on one definition that excludes explodingheads that involves one view on hate speech and spam, and explodingheads collectively agrees on another definition that excludes mastodon.social and involves censorship and free speech. Both groups are happy.

[burnished]

That isnt a caveat so much as a fearure

[jojobas]

Imagine being unable to email someone because he holds an opinion that was the only one possible some 15 years ago, and think again.

[madeofpalk]

This is the point of federation though. It allows for different standards of moderation to actually exist. If you don't like the way a server moderates, then don't join it (or transfer to another server, which you can mostly do with Mastodon). Hell, run your own mastodon server (or use a "mastodon-as-a-service" service) which is pretty trivial for micro instances.

The idea that there is one globally correct way to moderate is demonstratably completely untrue, regardless of what your actual views are. There must be multiple moderation standards that users can pick from.

[jojobas]

The only acceptable approach to moderation is one you can opt out of. Don't want a spam filter - fine, you're on your own.

Having to choose between politically charged "you can't read that" gatekeepers is a dystopian nightmare. Yes you can make your own, but next thing you know is "block this list of servers or we block you".

[cubefox]

I don't get why some people are so anxious to block alleged hate speech and supposed misinformation. Social networking sites already allow users to choose their own community simply by chosing whom they follow. Without federation. Why do we need additional segregation and polarization beyond that?

[madeofpalk]

Existing social networks do a poor job though of actually allowing users to choose their own community. For Twitter specifically algorthmic timeline, replies, likes, and retweets will often put content from people you don't follow right infront of you. You can maintain your timeline more by unfollowing and blocking, but this is a bunch of effort you must do on a more individual level.

Mastodon's approach allows you to outsource a part of that by just joining an instance that doesn't even allow "alleged hate speech" into your timeline. That's the appeal of that.

But the point of federated Mastodon is not to have a platform that is solely moderated less than Twitter.

It's that:

- it's not twitter (or rather, it's a "twitter clone" that's non-commercial, not reliant on a single entity, has a degree of data portability built in - decentralised)

- it can allow for the spectrum of moderation styles to exist. The majority of bigger "mainstream" instances are probably going to opt to moderate similarly-ish to social networks, but this doesn't negate the other reasons for mastodon to exist. You can have instances that have an even stricter moderation standard, or even looser.

But at the end you don't need to get why one person prefers a network in one way, because federation means different ways can happily exist, and you chose what you prefer. Just don't be surprised if other people aren't enthusiastic about the people you hang out with.

[burnished]

You're acting like the current methods aren't greeted with the same cries.

To answer your question; because they are demonstrably required. Different subreddits already moderate to different standards - why do you insist that each community needs to fit in as part of the same whole?

[currency]

I might talk about allegations and suppositions about an individual's behavior until I've seen evidence, but the hate and disinfo groups aren't imaginary.

Groups that promote hate speech and misinformation do so by invading other communities and being disruptive. Brigading and doxxing have been their tools for a long time.

Personally, I've seen that breaking up groups that promote hate speech and misinformation helps the remaining members to enjoy the community in peace.

[pixl97]

I mean if that opinion was they can send commercial messages to unsolicited users I don't have to imagine at all. I've been on the internet long enough to remember the days before spam filters.

[HWR_14]

For pretty much any value of "an opinion that was the only one possible some 15 years ago", you are wrong. Other ideas were around at the time.

[jojobas]

Ideas are like that, paper can't blush. For a salient example, the idea of providing 12 year olds with puberty blockers and opposite sex hormones without their parents' consent didn't quite fly then, and today disagreeing with it puts you in quite a few naughty lists.

[HWR_14]

"Ideas are controversial" is no where near "ideas weren't fathomable". There are several 24 news networks that make your exact example of "unallowed opinion" as a seemingly huge percentage of their content.

But also, that's a complete strawman. No serious group I am advocates medical treatment without parental consent. There is a strong movement to let 12-year-old choose what pronouns to use in school even without parental consent.

[cubefox]

It's more that at the time you could disagree on some things where now only one view is acceptable. The Overton window has narrowed substantially on certain subjects.

[kazinator]

Bzzt. The article is wrong; e-mail isn't federated. It's decentralized.

[zzzeek]

what opinion is that? I've never heard of such a thing