It is claimed that Mastodon has no particular political agenda, but it hasn't failed to escape me that a great number of instances have been set up to further very specific political goals. The people who run and use these instances have a very narrow and unwavering definition of free speech where any subject deemed too sensitive is subject to censoring, and any instance that does not comply is punished with suspension. My instance does NOT belong to that category.
@jd I was recently suspended by an instance because I felt it was a bit much to require the users on my instance to hide political statuses behind a content warning. Not pornographic or obscene imagery, or profanity, or particularly controversial content. Just political statuses. Apparently, politics is a, uh, "trigger" for some people?
@thor mastodon is software. so in its vary nature it doesn't have any political affiliation. But admins who run instances are humans and its quite impossible to be a human who doesn't have a political affiliation. I don't think if you asked the admins themselves wether they are neutral they would say "I am neutral"
@thor An eample would be nice to read. Where do you draw a line and decide if its censoring or just preventing harm to others?
@dan Pornography, erotic texts, gore, violence and severe profanity should be behind content warnings. Attacks or mockery of ethnic groups, sexual orientations and other vulnerable groups, together with child pornography and incitements to violence, should not be allowed at all. Controversial subjects like reproductive rights, politics and religion are fine, so long as one remains reasonably polite about it.
@dan In short, I draw my line at the point where an overwhelming majority of people would find a status purely harmful and completely devoid of value.
@dan If someone shares an extremely unpopular opinion, but there is a coherent argument, I'm willing to tolerate it. All of this is completely separate from what sort of conduct I will allow, of course. People should behave.
@thor because admins can run an instance any way they like, people have to get away from the idea of referring to "Mastodon" as a monolithic, single entity. For every instance with rules you don't like, there is another with more relaxed rules.
@Robert_MacAnthony I'm aware of this, but there's a lot of emotion mixed into it. There are instances who try as hard as they can to pressure other instances into complying and treating instance suspensions like punishments for bad behavior.
@thor I think that's pretty oversimplifying and reactionary. Coddling can be a problem, but it's really up to each community to balance. I think the question ought to be 'does a community foster a sense of victimhood or does it try to give people a space where they are actually able to gradually feel stronger and have the capacity to receive new ideas and be introspective?'
@dzuk I'm pointing out something that's been pointed out before: That there is somewhat of a divide between instances that seek to be safe spaces and instances that seek to be havens of free speech. There are shades in between, but occasionally, polar opposites collide and have a brusque encounter.
@thor I think 'haven', 'free speech' and 'safe space' are very contextual. Even places that want to be open to all kinds of people and ideas, no matter how violent or unpleasant they may be still need moderation to avoid the bullying personalities from dominating the local discourse (therefore preventing people from being able to say what they like because it is oppositional to the bullies) and to prevent uncivility from poisoning it.
@thor Plus I wouldn't consider a lot of the instances extreme or 'safe spaces' in a coddling way, just people who don't want to be with people who have violent opinions about their own personal lives. I don't believe that hiding from these people is going to stop their behaviour, but nor do I think is giving them a free pass anywhere. To me, having at least somewhere I don't have to worry about those people, is a 'haven' to me. I can still say what I want, I just can't be a dick.
@dzuk Well, my instance was just suspended by what appears to be an LGBT instance that insisted on me hiding political statuses behind a content warning. I respectfully disagreed with that, was told I don't at all understand how CWs are meant to work, and was then immediately suspended...
@thor Yeah, that sucks, I'm sure there are those places around, but I'm just not sure it's as dichotomous or agenda-y as you put it, but hey, at least you don't have to deal with that instance again ^w^. And at least each instance *can* lay down it's own rules/etiquette for CWs. You're not really losing anything here imo XD.
@dzuk The node that suspended my node was toot.cat. Judging from the owner's feed, he's on a suspension spree right now.
@thor Ouch. :/
@thor Plus the whole 'specific political goals' thing kind of reeks of divisive culture war rhetoric. A lot of people just want a social space that works for them, and the beauty of Mastodon is that is that it doesn't offer a one-size-fits-all approach and has the capacity for more effective moderation, unlike the birdsite.
@thor
re: Mastodon has no particular political agenda
Not quite, #Mastodon was created with the goal to be an alternative to the Tw/Fb duopoly of the collective cyber mind hive. That is VERY political.
re: 'these instances have a very narrow and unwavering definition of free speech'
You should name names. The 'political' instance I am on (soc.ialis.me) has pretty reasonable parameters, I think. What are your concerns exactly?