jd Ⓐ★😼🚀🌍🇪🇺🇭🇺

'...The notion that Twitter couldn’t curb spam bots and Nazis or that Google couldn’t blacklist 4chan from its news overview is absurd. The issue is that, for revenue purposes, engagement with the informational equivalent of a leaking septic tank is indistinguishable from engagement with news sources that aren’t explicitly trying to deceive and defraud readers. The political Facebook ads that were allegedly purchased by the Russian government went into the same money vault as ads from Nike and Pepsi, and rape-threat tweets count just as much on Twitter’s quarterly earnings calls as announcements from NASA and Denny’s. The increasingly toxic internet is working as designed by the companies that control most of it — corporate monoliths that hold the primary channels of digital information distribution and obligations to shareholders, not civil society..'

@jd I do wonder to what extent the Silicon Valley engineers and execs truly have some kind of libertarian ideology about free speech and therefore let the Nazis and trolls to participate in the "market of ideas". I can sympathize with the view, and I'm sure some % of #Mastodon users are here for precisely that reason. I'm not around the Federated timeline enough to know about this, are their Mastodon instances that tolerate that kind of behavior from their users?

@jd @Brian There are, though it's more common on GS or pleroma instances.

@Brian @jd

The way I see it: these web platforms want to be the de-facto place for communication and publication. Since they are aggressively against the state, they see their platforms as an alternative.

Free speech is a matter of state vs its citizens, but if you replace the state (at least in this space), you still have to embody the moral obligations attached to it.

So, because they want to be the be-all-end-all online social space, they feel the moral obligation to defend "free speech".

@jd @Brian Which is absurd!

If you look at non monopolistic topologies, like the fediverse, you don't need to defend "free speech". Because every instance is a space with a smaller perimeter.

Instances can all follow different sets of rules and decide who they federate with or not.

But you don't have to give a platform to nazis.

If you're the only social space available (and they want to be) you will start to question banning nazis because you feel obligated to offer a space to everyone.

@alxcndr @jd @Brian Plus theres the profit motive of capitalistic social media sites, nazi money is still money and they want it

@Laurelai @jd @Brian yes. I was simply adding my thoughts to what @jd said, which is exactly that.

@alxcndr @jd @Brian Oh something else i remember, a lot of techbros are in fact fascists, so these decisions might be deliberate , willful attempts to bring naziism to the mainstream

pol, social media, nazis Show more

pol, social media, nazis Show more

pol, social media, nazis Show more

pol, social media, nazis Show more

@alxcndr @jd but as an end user I can't know for sure what the instance owner will decide is not appropriate to federate to. Is there any kind of "report this toot to my instance owner(s) as hate speech" feature?

@Brian me I think so, there is a report entry in the menu for a toot (the three dots).

You can't know for sure what an admin would do. But many instances are publishing their moderation policy. This is part of the social dynamics, it's not a technical problem per se.

Sign in to participate in the conversation
soc.ialis.me mastodon

A generalistic Mastodon instance hosted in France, open to all and available since the 9 April 2017. Learn about the instance information and guidelines.