This is the point of federation though. It allows for different standards of moderation to actually exist. If you don't like the way a server moderates, then don't join it (or transfer to another server, which you can mostly do with Mastodon). Hell, run your own mastodon server (or use a "mastodon-as-a-service" service) which is pretty trivial for micro instances.
The idea that there is one globally correct way to moderate is demonstratably completely untrue, regardless of what your actual views are. There must be multiple moderation standards that users can pick from.
The only acceptable approach to moderation is one you can opt out of. Don't want a spam filter - fine, you're on your own.
Having to choose between politically charged "you can't read that" gatekeepers is a dystopian nightmare. Yes you can make your own, but next thing you know is "block this list of servers or we block you".
I don't get why some people are so anxious to block alleged hate speech and supposed misinformation. Social networking sites already allow users to choose their own community simply by chosing whom they follow. Without federation. Why do we need additional segregation and polarization beyond that?
Existing social networks do a poor job though of actually allowing users to choose their own community. For Twitter specifically algorthmic timeline, replies, likes, and retweets will often put content from people you don't follow right infront of you. You can maintain your timeline more by unfollowing and blocking, but this is a bunch of effort you must do on a more individual level.
Mastodon's approach allows you to outsource a part of that by just joining an instance that doesn't even allow "alleged hate speech" into your timeline. That's the appeal of that.
But the point of federated Mastodon is not to have a platform that is solely moderated less than Twitter.
It's that:
- it's not twitter (or rather, it's a "twitter clone" that's non-commercial, not reliant on a single entity, has a degree of data portability built in - decentralised)
- it can allow for the spectrum of moderation styles to exist. The majority of bigger "mainstream" instances are probably going to opt to moderate similarly-ish to social networks, but this doesn't negate the other reasons for mastodon to exist. You can have instances that have an even stricter moderation standard, or even looser.
But at the end you don't need to get why one person prefers a network in one way, because federation means different ways can happily exist, and you chose what you prefer. Just don't be surprised if other people aren't enthusiastic about the people you hang out with.
> For Twitter the algorthmic timeline means who you follow has such a small impact on who and what you see. And even if you switch to the non-default cronological timeline,
"Non-default" sounds too harsh here. It's literally a big tab saying "Following". It's only default for the very first time you log into Twitter, afterward it will remember your decision (it will be "default").
> , replies, likes, and retweets will often put content from people you don't follow into your timeline.
No only retweets will show in the Following tab. Which seems reasonable, as retweets were historically done via copy&paste. The other things aren't the case anymore for the "following" tab since Musk introduced it. (By the way, after pg himself asked him to add that possibility!)
I agree that Facebook is way worse in terms of moderation, but Mastodon doesn't seem an improvement over Twitter, quite the opposite. Those moderators are moderating for users, when this should be simply left to their decision of whom to follow. People or posts will be hidden from users who would not have hidden those themselves.
The decentralized approach sounds cool initially, but it leads only to even more segregation / filter bubbles / echo chambers. As if the choice of whom you follow didn't cause enough of that.
I think that's a real issue. Political polarization increases since the amount of media channels increases. When there were only a handful of newspapers or TV channels, they couldn't be too politically biased, otherwise they would scare away most other people. This changed when the number of media outlets increased. And with social media, every user now is able to create their own little reinforcement chamber.
You're acting like the current methods aren't greeted with the same cries.
To answer your question; because they are demonstrably required. Different subreddits already moderate to different standards - why do you insist that each community needs to fit in as part of the same whole?
Because Reddit isn't a social networking site where you create your own community by following people. In Reddit other people create those communities, because Reddit is a forum.
I might talk about allegations and suppositions about an individual's behavior until I've seen evidence, but the hate and disinfo groups aren't imaginary.
Groups that promote hate speech and misinformation do so by invading other communities and being disruptive. Brigading and doxxing have been their tools for a long time.
Personally, I've seen that breaking up groups that promote hate speech and misinformation helps the remaining members to enjoy the community in peace.
The problem is that what is considered "hate speech" and "misinformation" is often very subjective. How would someone even "invade" other people's communities? Everyone chooses their own timeline after all.
If all you ever do is read and never post anything people might interact with, then that's true. That's not much of a "community" though if nobody ever posts.
"Interact with"? You mean reply? If your tweet goes viral, you might indeed get unwanted replies. But usually you only get them from people who follow you, or other people close in your circle.
I mean if that opinion was they can send commercial messages to unsolicited users I don't have to imagine at all. I've been on the internet long enough to remember the days before spam filters.
Ideas are like that, paper can't blush. For a salient example, the idea of providing 12 year olds with puberty blockers and opposite sex hormones without their parents' consent didn't quite fly then, and today disagreeing with it puts you in quite a few naughty lists.
"Ideas are controversial" is no where near "ideas weren't fathomable". There are several 24 news networks that make your exact example of "unallowed opinion" as a seemingly huge percentage of their content.
But also, that's a complete strawman. No serious group I am advocates medical treatment without parental consent. There is a strong movement to let 12-year-old choose what pronouns to use in school even without parental consent.
It's more that at the time you could disagree on some things where now only one view is acceptable. The Overton window has narrowed substantially on certain subjects.
