I wonder if it's the same issue I posted about here: https://slrpnk.net/post/602890
I appreciate the considered response.
Let me prefix that I am stubborn as well, but in the opposite direction. I would rather have a dead forum than one full of toxic discourse. If discussion is going to make people feel worse and not be of any real benefit to anyone, it might as well not take place at all. It's similar to the issue of being open-minded; if your mind is too open your brain may just fall out and you would have been better off just being overly skeptical. There's no benefit to absorbing any and all things presented to you, and presenting it as some sort of virtue is weird. You may not think you are (or maybe you do), but you are implicitly presenting it as a virtue when you tell individuals to actively filter their own content. It becomes whack-a-mole for each and every one of us and by making toxic content visible the default, it suggests that blocking it is just like a personal prerogative. That the person is somehow sensitive for not wanting those turds floating around and you keep allowing the same people to continue to pour buckets of turds into their pool.
We are in the fediverse now, and there is a very important line to be drawn in between “Subscribed”, “Local”, and “All”.
I understand that there is a possibility that someone vulnerable may browse by “All” and run into harmful content.
The problem is greater than that. As long as we are federated with instances rife with bad actors, their posts, comments and votes will appear in communities we are subscribed to as well. Fortunately (well, in a sense), most instances are better moderated than this one and so communities hosted on their instances will not be accessible to the worst instances. Their protection then extends to us (well.. whoever ends up sticking around), but there's nothing preventing hate groups from harassing people here via communities on this instance, via PMs, or communities on other unmoderated instances.
If I were to receive many user reports - and I mean reports of specific content - I may also take action even if these are not Local. But I am being asked to block things before users even run into any of this content!! As in, I am pretty sure users have had to go to other instances to learn about exploding-heads, because I have not had any issues here.
Whether you have "run into" bad content or not is irrelevant. If members of this instance are made uncomfortable by what they see in All, in comments here and there, or worse, in PMs, that becomes your problem because you are responsible for what type of content this place allows. I hope you read the article about evaporative cooling because regardless of how you feel about people being made to feel merely uncomfortable on your instance, those people will eventually go away and be replaced by people you may not want to represent this place. This will happen slowly and once you realise, it's probably too late.
Another property of your stance is that it is inherently reactive. You require that people have a sour or harmful experience before maybe taking action, and based on your stated philosophy, probably not nearly as drastic action as would be necessary to really fix the problem. You can't just ban a person from an instance full of equally 'bad' people and expect that to be enough. The core principle of not being presumptuous or excluding may come from a good place, but it's misapplied and you won't be appreciated for it by people you would want to appreciate you.
I'm being quite prescriptive here. But to moderate and maintain a healthy community you need to be proactive. Your job as a moderator and admin is to prevent people from having a bad experience. You are not a police officer that goes around punishing people for behaving badly in the name of justice. Banning and defederating is not a device for punishment, it is a tool for carving out your own space. One that reflects your moral values. And yes, your moral values should be reflected in how you run this place, because as I've already argued, a person can not be impartial other than by chance. Let people who find your moral framework agreeable come here and subject themselves to your judgement out of trust. That, in my opinion, is how a good, cohesive community organically emerges.
Again, trying to act impartial only obfuscates your biases and people can't rely on your judgement if they don't know where they have you. It only opens you up to complaints about arbitrary and inconsistent enforcement of whatever rules you may eventually come up with.
On the issue of moderation
In the context of recent comments[1][2] made by the admin, I feel the need to bring up some thoughts I have on the relationships between free speech, moderation, impartiality and social issues.
For a start, I need to point out that science -- the study and exploration of the unknown -- is wrought with politics and social biases. Science could not be conducted without the exchange and preservation of information. Consider the endpoints and media of these exchanges of information. Humans preserve knowledge by storing it within their minds and/or inscribing it onto external media, and then communicating to others how and where to extract this information through social interactions.
Humans are biased and prone to irrationality. We know this. We know that biases dictate the rules and dynamics of social interaction, and that irrationality feeds into the formation of biases and vice versa. There is no such thing as an objective mind or impartial act; at best it is ignorance that counteracts one's biases, and this is how we try to conduct science. But we can not get any science done by only ever making blind choices in the interest of impartiality and fairness. We have to use moral judgement and intuition in order to make choices. What to research; how to interpret partial data; what conclusions to draw based on limited knowledge; how to even draw conclusions; what questions to ask; what answers to expect; what methods to use; whose interest to serve while prioritising.
The notion that you can just "be rational" and "stick to the science" is misguided. It prevents us from identifying our blindspots and biases. Recognising and acknowledging our limitations in perspective and understanding is vital to our efforts to deepen and widen our understanding of -- and existence within -- the natural world.
Let's consider what this means for members of a community such as this instance. When you are exposed to information -- whether misleading, false, essential or true -- what dictates your response to it is primarily a non-conscious process involving emotions, cognitive/physical state, innate primal instincts, etc. Your ability to reason only ever presents itself after your brain has interpreted the input signals and triggered an autonomic response. For many people, the non-conscious process can in some cases negatively affect their mental or even physical state in a very real and serious way (due to implications, extrapolations or associations of certain types of information - could be tragedy/gore/harassment or more complex triggers), often preventing them from dealing with it in a healthy and constructive manner. It's more nuanced than simply having or not having a (C-)PTSD diagnosis, and it is no one else's business to judge whether a person's inner experience is valid or that they should "suck it up" and "learn to deal with it". Unless one is an anti-social prick who thinks "survival of the fittest" makes for an excellent slogan and moral basis for a healthy society, of course.
Let's now consider how this relates to moderators of a community. If someone is responding negatively to some piece of information, one would do well to reflect upon why that may be, and what, if anything, can be reasonably done to prevent that. It is the task a moderator should be concerned with, so that they can form a basis for judgement. Sometimes a person can't be helped; sometimes it isn't in a group's interest to even attempt to fix a person's personal issues. But it is worth considering the implications when making a choice in who to accommodate. The choice may be passive or active. The former could be letting each person moderate their own experience; the latter could be defederating from instances that only contribute negatively to your community.
So, who should we accommodate? The anti-social extremist lashing out, ranting about conspiracies at anyone who will listen? Do you listen in the hope that it makes them (and.. you?) better people or do you shut the door to spare the rest of the room?
What about the trans person ranting about frequent harassment? Do you listen and consider their situation or do you let them figure it out on their own?
What about the autistic science nerd that gets upset over systematic disinformation and pseudoscientific posts populating their feed (and, by induction, everyone else's)? Do you crack down on those posters or let the nerds fight their own battle in the free marketplace of ideas (I mean, they're the rational ones with science on their side so they would surely win - sorry, had to sneak in a bit of diatribe)?
What purpose does unconditional (barring illegal conduct and spam) federation serve this instance? Who in this place appreciates the content and values sported by the people over at exploding-heads (for reasons other than absolute principles of freedom)? Forget breaking rules or laws; what potential value does a hypothetical Nazi or religious extremist group bring to this place? In whose interest is this instance acting when making (in)decisions about what other platforms are free to interact with (or at) us?
How do we expect this place to evolve over time as people who appreciate the moderation style here trickle in and remain active while people who are uncomfortable with it slowly evaporate?
Here is a relevant podcast episode by Sean Carroll (includes transcript). He identifies as an intellectual who is interested in open, rational debate, and gives some considered thoughts on how to balance moral principles like free speech vs people's well-being. If you have time and interest, I can recommend it (and his podcast in general).
You are shifting responsibility of moderation onto users. What you should be doing for all of us, you are asking us to do ourselves. Each of us would have to moderate the same content, and with fewer tools to do it. Massive duplication of effort and needless exposure to harmful content (or perhaps you find value in that type of content?).
If this is your stance and you are done thinking about this, I mourn what this instance might have been.
I want to know too. It's time for this instance to establish some basic moral framework.
Open discussion and interaction for the purpose of exchanging ideas and learning from one another is essential, and that only happens in an environment where people feel encouraged and safe. (The word safe can be a trigger for some and is often misinterpreted, so let me narrow the definition to the sense that you feel in control over your own well-being so that you can push your comfort zone on your own terms and grow as a person without having your comfort zone invaded and vandalised).
If people are made to feel discouraged and unsafe by a foul atmosphere and repeated exposure to content/interactions that degrade their health in any way (directly or indirectly; short term or long term), they will not benefit from any supposed openness or freedoms.
Whether some content technically breaks any explicit rules or not is inconsequential to the impact it has on the well-being of a community, so I don't want to see this place moderated under some false pretence of impartiality. Just keep it tidy and healthy so that we can focus on what we're all here for. If someone wants to go swimming with the sharks they can very well do so on some free speech instance. We all know what those are like. And there is a reason they end up that way.
This is cool! Typing with it right now. Have been hoping to see an innovation like this for a long time. (Maybe some proprietary products have come and gone but non-free software doesn't exist to me unless I really can't afford to abstain)
It hasn't been updated in like a year and there is no spell correction. Am I missing something or is this just an acceptable tradeoff for you?
The problem there is you not having the ability to change the configuration of the system image. Not the immutability.
I’m thinking about using a headless browser (like Selenium), grabbing the text, and using GPT to analyze and summarize the text. I need to try this out and guesstimate the pricing for it.
There are plugins these days that you can make the LLM use to search, retrieve and extract content from the web. If you have OpenAI API access you can use that, or you could host an open model yourself (but I'm not sure what the situation is in regards to how well those handle plugin tool use).
The idea is that you browse your feed of subscriptions, not that you literally go to an instance and browse their local feed.
I don't know if I solved it by disabling and re-enabling the repo but that's one of the things I tried and later I could see it.
Would if they were sold in the local store. My executive function makes it hard to go hunting for places to buy the things I need on a regular basis.
It's worth considering the environmental impact of spending a whole plastic bag (even if small) for what often amounts to rabbit-sized poop in case you have a smaller dog. I'm one of those owners that make contextual judgements about when to pick up and when to leave it or flick it into a nearby bush with a stick. I'm not picking up poop off-trail in the forest. Also generally not alongside car roads (talk about pollution).
I know owning pets is not environmentally sound, so all I can do is mitigate.
If this is a reference, I'm not getting it.
A shift of perspective: instances as communities; "communities" as subforums
Not meant as an authoritative or absolute assessment, but this viewpoint may help you come to terms with the "fragmented" nature of the fediverse and understand why it's the reason we are here (or at least why you would want to be). Lemmy and the fediverse is not "the ultimate aggregation platform" or the new old reddit in any singular or unified sense.
Digression: The fediverse, generally speaking, is an infrastructure; a network of communities across various social platforms, including link-aggregators, microblogging sites, video-streaming, forums, media-sharing, and website comment sections all over the internet. Lemmy is an animal sharing an ecosystem (the fediverse) with other animals (such as mastodon), but it isn't the fediverse, and not all animals think alike -- each platform has its own notion of what it means to interact and how you should interact -- but different species are still able to interact to various degrees.
In a similar vein, Lemmy instances are autonomous communities with their own values, purposes, interests, and, more concretely, moderation policies. An instance may choose to defederate with another instance for the same reason a "normal" website may not want to give space to content from just any other website. I like to think of federation in terms of "freedom from [lock-in/harassment/toxicity/ads/sensory assault/information attacks/tired debates/sea-lioning/etc]" while retaining the ability to continue interacting consensually with others on the network (as opposed to "if you don't like it on [centralised platform] you can leave", which usually means "you're free to leave this city and go build your own village in the Andean mountains").
Each instance separately may fill the role of link aggregator - but for members of that community (accounts on that instance) first and foremost, with that community’s values and moderation policies reflected in the perceived quality of content. The ability for an instance to federate with other instances with compatible policies is the benefit here, not an imperative or some duty an instance has towards le fediverse collective. Thus, it may actually help if you view an instance as the community, with its “communities” as its topics, or subforums if you will.
We need to remember that these sites are inherently social: the fediverse is not meant as a resilient information exchange protocol, but as a means for social groups to organise organically rather than be funnelled into the same environmentally controlled silo before inevitably being processed and sold. Part of that process (the former, not the latter) involves disagreement, defederation, migration, formation of new instances serving new niches, causes or ideals, and occasionally bad enough groups will get ostracised because they're intolerable (regardless of whether they think they're playing by the rules or not, because -- unlike on corporate social media -- on the fediverse you're allowed to simply not tolerate intolerable people).
This isn't to invalidate frustrations that arise from, for example, large instances defederating from yours when you haven't done anything wrong; there is the separate problem of a lack of portable identities, which would fix a number of inconveniences if it was a thing (to mention a few: deciding on where to sign up or settle down; migrating when a server goes down/to shit; having more than one interest/association but being forced to choose one community; even just following links to other instances). Luckily, there are reasons to think it can be done - it just hasn't been done yet.
Another popular frustration is that you often want to subscribe to a common topic but some of these are hosted by different instances, and this becomes a bit messy and unmanageable without any clear benefit, especially when the instances are not diverse enough to provide any unique flavour to the content posted. This is another fixable issue, and I suspect we'll see it implemented relatively soon.
I don't know if this is helpful for you but thanks for listening to my TED-talk.
Edit: compile error, expected ')', found EOF. Edit 2: added more paragraphs and some fluff because this became my activity today.
While I agree with this assessment, I don't think dictatorship (or authoritarianism more generally) is a solution to this problem. I don't know what the solution is, but I can speculate about various properties a solution might have, and one of them is that citizens/members of a community should be encouraged to participate in domain-specific politics that they know and care about without requiring them to form opinions about things they don't know much about.
We are all ignorant about things we don't spend time trying to understand and we should learn to respect that fact. This applies to leaders as well; no dictator or small group of people -- no matter how many advisors they have -- could possibly make informed decisions pertaining to all aspects of running a society. Glorifying or worshipping a leader or a party is madness we're all prone to as we seek simple answers that are consistent with our preconceived notions of how the world works.
Nice! I would say I am as well but I paused it maybe 30 min ago to ponder something that was said.
I would love this as well. I want to add also some more foundational/philosophical oriented topics like foundational physics and mathematics, and philosophy of science (or natural philosophy as Sean Carroll likes to call it).
As far as I thought I knew, you can't follow mastodon accounts from Lemmy. Is my understanding incorrect?
You may need to shift your expectations of the federation model. It's not trying to solve the problem of needing separate accounts on separate sites (that's what we need portable identities for and I hope we see that in the near future). It's trying to solve the problem of enabling self-governing communities and preventing platform lock-in.