[kstrauser]

I run a medium sized Mastodon server. I blocked them because one of their users called me the n-word, I reported them to their admin, and nothing happened. It had zero to do with fediblock or any other communal mechanism. Their users acted like assholes, their admins did nothing about it, so I decided I didn’t want to talk to them anymore.

The notion of FSE whining about being blocked by some cabal is hilarious to me. No, they’re garden variety trolls that are capable of annoying others directly. There’s no grand conspiracy required to make a bunch of people disconnect from them.

[qualeed]

>The notion of FSE whining about being blocked by some cabal is hilarious to me.

Are they whining about being blocked? I didn't catch it in the article, but maybe I missed it?

The only thing I saw was kind of the opposite of whining: "FSE being fedi's equivalent of a dive bar, I understand people on "gated community" instances not wanting to deal with it"

They seem totally fine & understanding if people want to block them. They just don't want the block reason to be a lie (e.g. saying they allow loli stuff when they don't). Presumably, you saying they are a bunch of assholes as your reason for blocking them would be completely accepted by them.

[kstrauser]

Yes. They say:

> I'd like to also thank fediblock for never fact-checking anything ever

and link to a list of all instances who have blocked them for any reason whatsoever. My instance is on that list, as though I blocked them because of fediblock. In reality, it’s impossible for them to know why someone blocked them without doing a survey or something.

[qualeed]

>I'd like to also thank fediblock for never fact-checking anything ever

The rest of the sentence is important to the meaning of the sentence, though...?

"giving the false impression that things that FSE has never permitted were allowed." with a link to a claim that they allow loli.

(For what it is worth, I've blocked them as well, but I still didn't read this paragraph as them "whining about a cabal")

[kstrauser]

Maybe, but they’re still linking to my server (and a bunch of others) as evidence that they’re widely blocked due to fediblock, and not because of individual servers blocking them for bad behavior. I personally couldn’t care less what fediblock said about them. It was nothing whatsoever to do with why I blocked them.

[qualeed]

>as evidence that they’re widely blocked due to fediblock

It seems like you're laser-focused on the fact that they link to fediblock instead of the actual words of the sentence.

Their complaint is not about being blocked, they make that clear in the part of the sentence you decided not to quote. They apparently just don't want the reason in the "Reason" column to be a lie.

It's probably a good bet to just read the whole sentence they wrote.

"I understand people on "gated community" instances not wanting to deal with it [...] but I would prefer if they did not lie about their reasons or about me personally."

They (seemingly) just don't want pedos thinking it's okay to post on there. Which is a good thing. So, if you're filling out a reason, just put "massive assholes" or whatever instead something untruthful.

[os2warpman]

>Their users acted like assholes, their admins did nothing about it, so I decided I didn’t want to talk to them anymore.

It has been my experience that the more vocal someone is about free speech rights the more likely it is that they are only vocal because they want to use those rights as a shield against criticism of their bigoted, annoying, or anti-social behavior and they want to criticize people for distancing themselves from the bigotry.

To them free speech is mandatory listening-- to them, no matter what.

[kstrauser]

That's been my observation. "Freedom to... say what exactly?"

I'm A-OK with people saying constructive, civil things I disagree with. I might reply with my disagreement but that's OK. We're talking! I have zero patience with someone jumping in with trolling, harassment, or other abuse.

[robertlagrant]

> Freedom to... say what exactly?

What's the difference between this and saying "Criminals want trials with defence lawyers, so people who want trials with defence lawyers are criminals"?

[winternewt]

At least when someone promotes free speech there's a chance that they are proponents of democratic principles. If they are against free speech you know that they have an authoritarian ideology.

[kstrauser]

No one believes themselves to be against free speech.

[account42]

You do.

> I blocked them because one of their users called me the n-word

[kstrauser]

I'm not against free speech. I'm just exercising my right not to have to hear them, or to spend my own money to carry the traffic they're generating. They can still say whatever they want to whomever they choose. We just get to decide not to listen.

[norir]

There is a well known effect that goes by many names that anything taken to its extreme becomes its opposite.

[blueflow]

There is the popular belief that shunning people or groups of people like this will lead to their exclusion from society, not yours.

[kstrauser]

If you can’t shun someone for their direct misbehavior, then why can you decide not to mute someone?

Note that I never told you that you’re not allowed to talk to them. I just said they’re not allowed to harass me or my users anymore. You can still hang out with them all you like.

[blueflow]

I was unable to settle on the Fediverse as i did not find an instance from where i could follow and interact with all the people that i know. My social circles are rather "diverse" and people like you are apparently working hard to not allow that.

I guess your users were okay with you setting blocks?

[kstrauser]

Yes and no. I’m working hard to keep people who act horribly out of my corner of the fediverse. I’ve never blocked someone for having different political opinions from my own, for example, but I’ve blocked plenty of people, even those who mostly share my opinions, because they were behaving like jerks. I’m doing nothing whatsoever to keep you from talking to them.

Hang out with anyone you want to, and I’ll do the same. And yes, my users are specifically OK with it. Our moderation actions are public, we put them to a vote when there’s some question about the right thing to do, and I’ve blogged a lot about the details of it all. Users tend to join and stay with my instance because they agree with my moderation actions, not in spite of them.

[blueflow]

"behaving like a jerk" by your cultural norms and standards. I understand your position and wish you and your instance a future of diverse and fruitful conversations.

[kstrauser]

Well, of course we’re not going to block them due to anyone else’s standards.

Thanks! We’ve been online for 8 years and it’s been a lot of fun, other than dealing with moderation of bad actors. Like the one above who called me an n-word, for instance. Although that was one of the easier mod decisions we had to make, to be sure!

[lovich]

Do you believe that people can hold a negative opinion of someone else and choose not to interact with them, or does your world view require that people are compelled to interact with anyone who demands it of them?

[pixl97]

Diverse conversations are actually pretty rare in reality when conflicting opinions exist. The paradox of tolerance pretty much demands you weed out the extremists or they will be all that's left.

[RankingMember]

> "behaving like a jerk" by your cultural norms and standards.

Calling someone the "n-word" doesn't really need a lot of cultural translation to be considered offensive.