This seems very on-topic and in-depth: https://techpolicy.press/the-whiteness-of-mastodon/
There was quite a bit of meta-drama on fedi around BIPOC people being told to CW racism. But that's a far, far cry from "levels of racist abuse unseen on commercial platforms".
Before anyone construes this into a MaStOdOn WiLl NeVeR wOrK hot take, here's the crux of Nolan's blog post:
In my five years on Mastodon, I’ve found that there is a lot it does better than Twitter, but there is also a lot that is just endemic to social media. To the endless scroll. To the status games, the quest for adulation, the human urge to shame and shun and one-up and manipulate. I’m sure this goes back to Usenet – Jaron Lanier called it “chaotic human weather”.
There is a better way to foster kind, thoughtful, generous, joyful conversation on the internet. I’m not convinced that Mastodon has found the magic formula, but it is a step in the right direction.
My initial claim was:
Aren’t you the person who went around fedi a few weeks ago and threatened fedi admins with legal action?
You said:
I can’t see any threat of legal actions
I provided the proof.
And because of your report about CP to mstdn.social
Still waiting for any kind of proof of that. Hint: there isn't one, because I have never reported anyone for that kind of material.
And then you want to tell me, who has been in the Fediverse since ostatus
My ancient identi.ca account is here, if we want to talk OStatus. Care to share yours?
that you have so much more experience in administration and moderation?
I never claimed that I do. I said that fedi admins do. And provided a link to back that up.
And that you’re mentioned in that toot is only, because the Mastodon client added you autmatically.
Well if someone is throwing around legal threats, perhaps they could go the extra mile to be clear in who they are meant for? "Sorry, Your Honor, this account was mentioned accidentally" is not a great strategy here. And since I have no way of knowing what's in the head of a person writing something like this, I can only base my reading of sich a threat on what is actually, you know, written there. 🤷♀️
But for you, everything is about you anyway, and you also refer to everything directly as an attack on you. 🤦 My gosh, your ego must have suffered.
Indeed, I am completely broken by the revelation that a legal threat by some rando on the Internet is not, in fact, directed at me. Hartbreaking.
Very thankful that there are people around reasonable enough to react to a fediblock by threatening legal action to fedi admins (btw, thanks for letting me know Stux is also targeted, I had no clear proof there are multiple fedi admins targeted, now I do!). People who totally aren't making this "about themselves". Internet truly is a wondrous place!
I have never once reported a profile for "child pornography", as I have so far been fortunate enough to never have bumped into that on fedi. But sure, whatever. 😄
EDIT: I can’t see any threat of legal actions. But you don’t care, because you interpret what you want into what was written 🤦
Well, the OP is actually talking about "requests" being "forwarded" to their lawyer right in their post, so there's that. But if you need a more clear proof, here you are. Directed at me and at a specific fediadmin.
I eagerly await any proof of your claims about my "reporting profiles because of child pornography" now. I'm sure you have them, you wouldn't be making such strong claims otherwise, now would you?
Wait, I remembered something. Aren't you the person who went around fedi a few weeks ago and threatened fedi admins with legal action? And then threatened me with legal action too just because I boosted one fedadmin's toot that was not even directly mentioning you?
Yes. Yes indeed you are!
I really do wonder why people are inclined to block you and your instance. Truly a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, wrapped in an enigma.
Very good piece, I must say.
anarchy and dictatorship
Wow, both at the same time? That's an achievement!
And those who are so hungry for consent, you should think about whether you #FediBlocker have the consent for your nonsense?
Yes. Yes they do. The consent required is not of blocked instances or their users, but of users on the blocking instance. You do not need consent from the spammer to block spam. You do not need consent from a troll to block a troll. And while many fediblock cases are not as clear cut as these, direction of consent remains unchanged.
As much as I see some issues with fediblock and knee-jerking that is sometimes going on there, consent is not an issue here. And I do empathize with admins/mods trying to protect their communities from dangerous/hurtful/abusive crap.
Fediverse admins and mods have a lot of experience dealing with abuse, and part of that experience includes dealing with concerted attacks of abusive people trying to figure out how to go around blocks, etc, to harass people on instances these admins and mods run. But of course it's easier to dismiss them as "anarchistic dictators" or something. 🤦♀️
Thus, it clearly shows again that #FediBlock is solely a pillory to those who seem to have achieved nothing in their lives.
They achieved a fediverse that is genuinely nice to be a part of. This is something that comes up over and over, and over again from people who migrated recently from Twitter. It's not perfect, and the way things are dealt with will have to change due to the massive influx of new people and instances, but to say they have not achieved anything is disingenuous and demonstrably false.
With that kind of attitude on display here, gee I wonder why people responsible for the well-being of their communities found the tool iffy. 🤔
However, the information about who blocks whom is in many ways more than just interesting for those who want to choose an instance.
Yes, that is something that will need to be handled better. But it will need to be discussed and a solution will have to be found together with admins and moderators of instances, not despite them.
I heard about Galactica being open source here
Well, where is the code? What is the license?
Big Tech has a long history of claiming stuff is "open-source" when in fact it's anything but. So unless actual code is available under an OSI-approved license, I call BS.
Interesting. That's a different Whisper though, no? Also I don't think OpenAI qualifies as Big Tech, they've been doing open-source AI (as the name suggests) for a long while, with the exception of licensing GPT-3 exclusively to MS.
Wait, I don't see anything about Galactica being open-sourced. Can you point me to a source? I see this though:
https://www.siliconrepublic.com/machines/galactica-meta-ai-large-language-model
I see nothing about Whispers AI being open-sourced either:
https://whisper.ai/
And I see facebook talking about open-sourcing Cicero, but I don't see any link to code, nor info on the license:
https://about.fb.com/news/2022/11/cicero-ai-that-can-collaborate-and-negotiate-with-you/
Interesting, TIL.
That, to me, is the crux of it, so I will trust the BIPOC folk when they tell me we need to improve.