If the policy is defined then I don't see a problem with that. The issue with Twitter is that Musk openly tweeted that he's a free speech absolutist and even said the things he now started to ban, were allowed.
I think Musk and his followers must realize that free speech is a marketing campaign, and Elon's hypocrisy on going back on free speech is embracing the reality of things.
At this point, this formulation of "free speech" complaint is nothing but a dog-whistle, "they're not interested in platforming my racist trolling, wah! So much for the tolerant left."
Which is true, but also, I don't care, and I'm happy with it, because we're better off and other speech flourishes.
Realistically, each Mastodon instance sets its own policies. Most publish lists of the instances they've banned. When I looked at those lists a month ago, it seemed like the median instance banned 6-10 other instances. Typically, the banned instances included a particular instance which publishes a lot of Nazi symbols, which are illegal in many European countries. Other frequently-banned instances included ones with lots of NSFW content, including a now-extinct instance used by sex workers. Also, spammy instances got banned a lot.
However, a handful of Mastodon instances, mostly ones used by frequently harassed groups, banned dozens of other instances. This was one of their major selling points to their users: "Join here, and we'll provide a curated experience with fewer harassers."
No instance that I saw banned linking to Twitter, and I can't think of any instance that banned journalists from major mainstream papers.
But the thing about Mastodon is that if you really want to talk to Nazi wannabes, you can always set up your own instance. However, many people may choose not to talk with you, because many people dislike wannabe Nazis and their buddies and don't invite them to the cool parties. Almost every worthwhile social space has always had rules about who's not invited.
Elon Musk has every right to shout loudly about freedom of speech, and then ban journalists and links to competitors. And his critics have every right to mock him for this.
It seems reasonable to define the "main Fediverse" as the set of servers that most other servers federate with. There are distributed blacklists of servers like https://joinfediverse.wiki/FediBlock, and I would not consider the servers listed there to be on the "main Fediverse" since they cannot communicate with many of the larger Fediverse servers.
The fediverse to which the most popular instances, such as mastodon.social, belong.
All the instances in the main fediverse have practically the same moderation rules and if you don't apply them to your instance they ban you and stop federating with you.
I think those ideas are not as contradictory as you assert.
small private forums also had some draconian moderation (well, some of them did for sure), but the key point was that they were small, targeted and competitive with each other.
Too draconian, and people leave; too loose and people abuse.
The thing is, you kinda know what you're in for with small forums (or in this case mastadon instances), the servers themselves do more to say what they're targeting and what niche they have; they do not pretend to be an apolitical platform or to not have opinions.
That's the major difference, you can go to other Mastadon instances and find people you enjoy being around. With Twitter there are some hidden "rules" (which used to align with the US west coast ideals, and now seem to align more with the trumpy right-wing thing), with Mastadon it's more likely that you know what the rules are.
Mastodon used to appeal mostly to the fringes that Twitter never served properly. That means queer people, but it also means Nazis, including the self-described ones. So having good moderation is quite essential to a good experience.
Philip-J-Fry|3 years ago
It's the hypocrisy which is the issue there.
morbidious|3 years ago
MarkPNeyer|3 years ago
Would you be OK if Twitter just said, “all legal speech can be up, even doxxing since that’s not illegal?”
yokoprime|3 years ago
SideburnsOfDoom|3 years ago
Which is true, but also, I don't care, and I'm happy with it, because we're better off and other speech flourishes.
MarkPNeyer|3 years ago
ekidd|3 years ago
However, a handful of Mastodon instances, mostly ones used by frequently harassed groups, banned dozens of other instances. This was one of their major selling points to their users: "Join here, and we'll provide a curated experience with fewer harassers."
No instance that I saw banned linking to Twitter, and I can't think of any instance that banned journalists from major mainstream papers.
But the thing about Mastodon is that if you really want to talk to Nazi wannabes, you can always set up your own instance. However, many people may choose not to talk with you, because many people dislike wannabe Nazis and their buddies and don't invite them to the cool parties. Almost every worthwhile social space has always had rules about who's not invited.
Elon Musk has every right to shout loudly about freedom of speech, and then ban journalists and links to competitors. And his critics have every right to mock him for this.
ben0x539|3 years ago
smcn|3 years ago
pseudo0|3 years ago
zqfuz|3 years ago
All the instances in the main fediverse have practically the same moderation rules and if you don't apply them to your instance they ban you and stop federating with you.
dijit|3 years ago
small private forums also had some draconian moderation (well, some of them did for sure), but the key point was that they were small, targeted and competitive with each other.
Too draconian, and people leave; too loose and people abuse.
The thing is, you kinda know what you're in for with small forums (or in this case mastadon instances), the servers themselves do more to say what they're targeting and what niche they have; they do not pretend to be an apolitical platform or to not have opinions.
That's the major difference, you can go to other Mastadon instances and find people you enjoy being around. With Twitter there are some hidden "rules" (which used to align with the US west coast ideals, and now seem to align more with the trumpy right-wing thing), with Mastadon it's more likely that you know what the rules are.
MarkPNeyer|3 years ago
Mastodon instances are all private property. They are clubs that can be run according to the wishes of the owners.
markdown|3 years ago
Establishing clear policies and guidelines is critical. Musk's mistake is making things up to suit his personal feelings as he goes along.
asmor|3 years ago