Hacker News Reader

Comment by hello_marmalade | Hacker News Reader

The idea that you should be able to shield or blind yourself to content is a flat out stupid one. Not to mention that the way Mastodon works kinda lends it self to the old issue of jerk forum admins. If an instance owner doesn't like what you say for any reason they boot you off. They can also share that information with other instances to block you from going to those instances as well. Sure, you could start your own or join an instance that doesn't do that kinda stuff, but then what's the point of federation?

Those are really the only two issues I have with Mastodon.

View on HN

> Sure, you could start your own or join an instance that doesn't do that kinda stuff, but then what's the point of federation?

That is exactly the point of federation.

Maybe jerk admins are a real problem, maybe they aren't - but they can't boot you off the network, and you'll always have options.

It's like being involved in a real life hobby. Sure, one club or organisation can be jerks and kick you out for minor disagreements, but nothing stops you from joining another one or setting up your own.

Well more specifically, what I was trying to say is, if you wanted to be part of, say - the cross-stitching community, and you made a post about how over-under stitching sucks, and so the owner of that server banned you, and then let every other cross-stitching based mastodon know about your terrible stitching beliefs, then while you can still "join" another mastodon instance, you are effectively removed completely from the "cross-stitching community".

From what I'm aware of, this has kinda happened with certain instances have essentially been blackballed by the groups of instances which don't like them, or whatever.

That is only if the entire cross stitching community chooses to remove you. The alternative is facebook, and if facebook decides to remove you it doesn't matter what the cross stitching community says, you are out

Well in that case couldnt said person create their own community? Assuming there are those in Mastodon that don't agree with the (possibly repeated) actions of the server admin people will start to leave.

So no matter what there is still an option. Unlike Facebook/Twitter. I mean technically even InfoWars and Alex Jones could start their own community and by the rules of Mastodon not get kicked off.

Please no one tell Alex Jones about Mastodon.

No, someone please do tell Alex Jones about Mastodon. The sooner a problem is encountered, the sooner a solution is found.

The alternative is to bump into that problem farther down the line, where solving it will be much costlier.

And if Mastodon will crumble because of Alex Jones, it would have crumbled eventually because of someone else like that.

>The idea that you should be able to shield or blind yourself to content is a flat out stupid one.

I must be stupid, because I don't understand why I shouldn't have this right.

Because it's counter-productive. I agree with it insofar as things like spam, which has nothing to do with communication, really - but when it comes to just simply, speech, it's a bad idea.

Lets take a really overly simplified example. Lets say you don't like people who like Purple. You're a Pink guy, through and through. In fact you hate people who like Purple. You think they're all jerks. So - you decide, you're going to make it so that you, and anyone else on your sever doesn't have to see Purple posters.

Half a year later, you find out that most people now believe in Purple. You don't find this out until people are telling you about how good Purple is in real life. When did all these people turn to Purple?

The problem I'm trying to illustrate here, is that as someone who is all about Pink - and opposed to Purple, you've taken yourself out of the opposing conversation. You didn't realize that Purple had the stage, and had been convincing people to go Purple. You didn't realize how much ground Purple gained, with nobody there to speak out about how bad Purple is.

While it might feel nice to not have to see things you don't like, in the broader sphere of the world and the place you live, it's damaging. You need to be aware of, and have to confront things you don't like. It's part of your civic duty.

You're talking about filtering types of speech but in reality you really want to block people. It's not that Bob is really enthusiastic about Purple; it's that he's an insufferable jerk that makes any conversation about Pink impossible.

You think you can try and compete with Bob but you can't; he's mentally ill and spends 6 hours a day posting about it. You could try to make a rational argument about the evils of Purple but it dosn't matter. You confront Bob but he's not interested in rational conversation. You just get more frustrated and eventually give up on your community. If there is still anyone still interested in Pink they've long been driven off.

I'm not sure you've managed to get around the problem that your argument implies you have a right to demand my attention and make a claim on my time. That's a North Korean-level intrusive idea.

There's plenty of speech which is non-political, non-substantial, has little or no intrinsic value, and I'm simply not interested in reading it. For instance if I wake up one morning and feel like telling you that you're a piece of sh*t because I'm just not a fan of fruit jams, you have no obligation at all to accept my message. This isn't really spam it's just me being a troll and a dickhead.

If you argued that certain people in 2018 are too thin-skinned and characterize everyone as attacking or oppressing them I'd agree, but we still need filters to deal with legitimate abusers.

> You need to be aware of, and have to confront things you don't like.

I’d agree anywhere but twitter/mastadon. Terrible platform for any kind of coherent conversation. Use it for shit that DOESN’T matter, and please god get your news anywhere else.

I honestly have no clue how you would use it without filtering. Seems miserable.

I disagree. I don't like the Kardashians. I don't care if it is my civic duty to keep up with whatever the Kardashians are wearing today. Just because they are a part of the broader sphere of the world and I apparently need to be aware of and confront things I don't like, such as the Kardashian clan, I have so many better things to do with my attention, no matter how damaging and counter-productive it is for me to avoid Kardashian gossip. Of course I could replace Kardashian with a million other topics.

>The idea that you should be able to shield or blind yourself to content is a flat out stupid one.

Honest question:

Do you feel private organisations and communities shouldn't be able to kick out people they dislike? Because that's how almost all organisations and groups work, real life, internet or otherwise. Doesn't seem very unreasonable to say someone running a hobbyist club or sports team or business should be able to kick out someone they/the people involved can't get along with.

Do you feel private organisations and communities shouldn't be able to kick out people they dislike? Because that's how almost all organisations and groups work, real life, internet or otherwise.

Do you feel like people should be excluded because of their race? Their gender? Their age? Their sexual orientation? Their religion? Isn't that last one a choice according to a lot of people?

People should be able to make intimate temporary spaces which will sometimes even be exclusionary. However, permanent places in the public sphere should not be exclusionary. When the majority of a society starts feeling free to push around a minority, this is when oppression happens. This is especially true when it comes to politics. People should have freedom of association, so long as it doesn't interfere with other's freedom to pursue happiness.

Doesn't seem very unreasonable to say someone running a hobbyist club or sports team or business should be able to kick out someone they/the people involved can't get along with.

Activists have been seen colluding online, planning to deny their political enemies their hobbies and pastimes. It's called, "No escapism," and it's just a stealth form of harassment for political purposes. In the end, progress is best served by welcoming differences, talking, and sincerely interacting. You don't fight hate by acting hatefully. If you can at all help it, you shouldn't try to reduce violence through violence. You don't increase the world's tolerance by refusing tolerance.

Here's a good litmus test: Are the tactics you're proposing to use similar to the ones people used to use against gay people, or people of the "wrong" religion, or people of the "wrong" race? If so, then you're probably the villain in the story.

Zu jeder Zeit und an jedem Ort bleiben die Taten der Menschen die gleichen.

>However, permanent places in the public sphere should not be exclusionary.

How do you define "public"?

> You don't fight hate by acting hatefully.

Is excluding someone a hateful act?

Is excluding someone a hateful act?

It depends on how you do it. If it's of the same side, flying the same colors that wants to enact violence, then the other signifiers of hate can be read pretty reliably.

Private business are not "places in the public sphere" and should be exclusionary if they want to. You think the New York Times is going to publish something just because someone sends in their thoughts? It doesn't work that way, and neither should media on the internet.

Private businesses are absolutely places in the public sphere. If you pull your pants down in the middle of a Wal-Mart, are you not exposing yourself in public?

YouTube, Twitter, etc. and similar public sites with predominantly public content are absolutely "in the public sphere", and definitely the modern analogue of the street corner you can shout your feelings in.

We really no longer have the luxury of saying the government is the only entity that needs to respect your freedom of speech, and the law desperately needs to catch up with that reality.

Don't try to approach the law axiomatically like that. You won't get anywhere. In this case, you have it backwards: the law doesn't start with a definition of "public place" and then attach conditions to it, but rather starts with conditions ("you can't lasciviously expose yourself in public") to which specific definitions of the word public space are attached.

It does not therefore make sense to reason from "indecent exposure is illegal in a grocery store" to "here is a set of claims I can make on a grocery store as a public space".

It does not therefore make sense to reason from "indecent exposure is illegal in a grocery store" to "here is a set of claims I can make on a grocery store as a public space".

Then how is it that it's illegal for a grocery store to exclude people because of their race? There is clearly some reason that people can't be excluded from a such a space, while there also exist exclusive private clubs.

I don't understand why this is hard to answer. The reason you can't do that is because the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbids that explicitly, and includes its own definition of what institutions the law applies to.

I'm also a bit confused by your "then how do you..." framing, as if you might be able to find a first-principles argument to refute my argument, which is a pretty straightforward fact you can just look up in any state's indecent exposure statute.

The reason you can't do that is because the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbids that explicitly, and includes its own definition of what institutions the law applies to.

And what is the basis of that definition?

as if you might be able to find a first-principles argument to refute my argument

There is something there. It does have to do with whether or not people can move and function in the public sphere.

I assume there are several hundred law review articles written by people who are quite a bit more qualified to debate this stuff than we are that can give you several answers to your first question. All I can tell you is: the Civil Rights Act explicitly defines the nature of places where protected classes can and can't be excluded. I'm not interested in trying to reconstruct it from first principles.

I'm not interested in trying to reconstruct it from first principles.

Is it because it's quite obvious from common sense, and doing so reveals the hypocrisy in politics and social media today?

What a rude way to end a discussion. I took the time to back to primary sources to inform my responses to you. You owed me better than this kind of snark.

I don't see how I'm being rude. Sources aren't a sufficient excuse to stop the conversation short of first principles.

You're comparing a grocery store in the physical realm of trading goods with social media, which makes no sense. Compare social media to traditional media if you want a fair comparison.

I would argue that I wasn't trying to "approach the law axiomatically", since I was trying to demonstrate the law does not cover something that it arguably (by a more common "human understanding") should.

The right to free speech arguably requires that we have a place to express that speech. Given that all communications are effectively corporate-owned, it's hard to argue that this isn't an important gap to discuss. Hosting providers, domain registrars, CDN services, certificate authorities, etc. are all owned by companies, and beyond platforms, infrastructure has now been increasingly used as a target to use to restrict speech.

Perhaps an example would be if you could be banned from protesting on a sidewalk by the company that poured the concrete.

Or another example, people don't often consider, is that phone communications, like Internet communications, are owned by corporations. Wouldn't people consider it crazy if I suggested that Verizon or AT&T should have a say in what you said over their networks?

I recognize that the law doesn't consider an Internet platform to be a public space where free speech is required, but my point is that this is the problem: Our laws have not kept up with the society we live in.

You can't be banned from protesting on a sidewalk by the company that poured the concrete.

Verizon is not allowed to monitor your phone calls (except as needed to maintain its network) under the ECPA.

I apologize, but that's just silly. Private businesses are NOT platforms that should guarantee everyone the right to speak. If we follow that line of reasoning, then I suppose I could walk into any restaurant and demand to eat for free since as a private entity they shouldn't have the right to refuse me, right?

If you're making the argument that the law needs to change and these platforms need to be regulated, that's another argument. Though I can foresee how that will lead to a dark path. I strongly believe in the right of a human to speak their mind without fear of persecution, but I also think a private business has the right to refuse speech they do not like.

I’m confused. Are you arguing we deserve the right to say or do whatever we want in public? Not even the first amendment protects that, let alone on private property like walmart or youtube.

How does your argument not boil down to the claim that "blocking Neo-Nazis is as bad as being a Neo-Nazi"?

Again, that depends on how you do it. Are you going to block them through argument, or positive example? Or are you going to block them through violence and suppression?

Which side is the morally better and truly better side? I think historians will be judging us by our words and actions. My argument was never that blocking X was being X. My argument is always that acting as X is being X. If Antifa wants to argue that they can use assault (or tolerate it from those wearing their colors) because they are only X% as bad as Nazis, then I think we should take them at their word and treat them if they're as bad as X% Nazis.

Obviously I'm going to block them by filtering them mechanically, because nobody has a right to demand an argument or a "positive example" from me. With that answer in hand, can you refine your answer to my question?

Obviously I'm going to block them by filtering them mechanically, because nobody has a right to demand an argument or a "positive example" from me.

Obviously. However, historically it's a good way to go. Please demonstrate the necessity of your using "demand" in your sentence? You seem to have a pointed bias in how you read my comments.

I do demand, however, that people do not use political violence in the US. I also note who does and does not call out political violence.

You're the only person I see talking about "violence" in this thread, which is actually about mechanically filtering unwanted comments. If there's bias here, it's not coming from me. I don't support political violence either.

Intimidating, shaming, and otherwise excluding people from the public sphere is "mechanically filtering?"

I don't support political violence either.

I'm glad to hear it. I wish I'd hear a lot more of that from the US political left. Have you ever experienced negative attention "just short of violence" from people who have an axe to grind, but who don't want to get in trouble from violence? I have. I've received such attention from people who had an axe to grind against homosexuals. I've received such attention from people who didn't like immigrants. In recent years, the most negative attention "just short of violence" I've received is from people on the far left of US politics.

First, I'm not the "US political left".

Second, the thread you're commenting on is about the ability of social network operators to block people, both on Twitter and on Mastodon. You're commenting on a thread rooted in a comment suggesting that people should not, under ordinary circumstances, be allowed to block other users on a social network.

The whole thread is there for you to read, and I object to you pretending for the sake of your argument that I'm the one veering it off course. Please stop.

The underlying issue is convincing vs. exercising force.

"Conflict is Not Abuse" by Sarah Schulman is supposed to be a good book.

Morality has nothing to do with it, or at least shouldn't. It's a business with profit in mind. You think all these recent deplatforming/censoring has anything to do with freedom of speech or setting positive examples?

Nobody has time for that, especially businesses that are profit-driven and rightfully so. Everyone should have the right to speak their mind, but you don't get to violate the right of a private platform to exclude you based on rules they have set. You have a right to be heard, just build your own platform, nobody is stopping you.

> Do you feel like people should be excluded because of their race? Their gender? Their age? Their sexual orientation? Their religion? Isn't that last one a choice according to a lot of people?

For private, special interest groups... certain nly! Very little on the internet is not privately owned.

> If an instance owner doesn't like what you say for any reason they boot you off.

Social media has to have some form of moderation/curation, otherwise it would just be full of spam.

> but then what's the point of federation?

Censorship is a fraught issue: Some people think lots of things should be blocked; other people think only things against the law should be; and yet others think not even that. There's no way of pleasing everyone. So having a federation of different instances allows each to have whatever moderation policies that suit them, instead of one size fits all.

Actually this serves as a pretty good pitch for mastadon. Being able to choose the flavor of admin jerk is better than having no choice at all.

> The idea that you should be able to shield or blind yourself to content is a flat out stupid one

I'm sure I must be misunderstanding this, because it sounds like you're saying "dick pics and other forms of harrassment are fine, you shouldn't even want to avoid them"? Can you explain what you actually mean, assuming that that isn't it?

Perhaps I should have been more specific, but what I mean is forms of reasonable legal content. Sexual harassment is not content. General sexual content has legitimate reasons for having, say a content warning filter (same with violent content), but I would argue against it's outright banning.

> instance owner doesn't like what you say for any reason they boot you off

That's why I think adding naked domain in ActivityPub is important. It avoids double @user@domain.tld, you can simply use your tld. It's easier to remember, also better to self-host.

How do you you propose blacklisting spammers or dealing with material that is illegal in the server's country?

I feel like one of the truly unique aspects of American millennials is the widespread abandonment of a commitment to free speech.

It is so disheartening to hear people who earnestly equate physical violence with offensive speech. Mastodon offers a forum for people who see the wisdom of a commitment to free speech.

It's not just American millennials; this is also occurring in Australia.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com