We need to talk about c.im…
According to reports by members and ex-members, the c.im instance doesn’t just ban racism, sexism, etc., but – in a warped reading of what otherwise appear to be boilerplate instance rules – any mention or discussion of racism, sexism, etc.
I’m not sure if #fediblock is the right response here as a more effective approach might be to make folks on the instance aware of this first so they have a chance to migrate.
@aral Why do we need to talk about c.im?
Why not just live and let live?
The beauty of distributed SoMe is that you *can* have instances with crazy moderation.
How does the crazy moderation of c.im affect you? If "not at all", then why bother?
I would be saying exactly the same if the instance was moderated by crazy trump supporters, flat earthers, anti-vaxers, pro-lifers, pro-gunners, etc.
We also want the crazies to move from centralized services.
@tange Spoken like someone with privilege.
Let me explain what I mean: what you’re really asking is why we should care if some folks are being horrible to marginalised people if it doesn’t affect us personally?
The answer is because we live in a society. And a healthy society is one in which everyone’s rights are upheld and where we protect one another.
You don’t build strong societies by normalising looking the other way. Social justice demands that we care for others, not just ourselves.
@aral You are attacking a strawman.
I am saying: There are plenty of instances where they can discuss their issues. If they do not like the moderation of c.im, they can go somewhere else. Or setup their own instance.
It is really not that different from anti-vaxers and flat-earthers who are also marginalised.
If you do not believe me, try opening an account and act like a well behaved trump supporter who is also flat earther, anti-vaxer, pro-life, and pro-guns.
@wasootch I think the key issue here is "perfectly acceptable" to whom?
I am close to a free speech absolutist, so I would no doubt permit it had it been my server: I would even permit legal speech I despise.
But I respect that others feel differently on the servers they pay for. And I think that is a reasonable balance to strike: If you pay for the server, you decide the rules. If free-riders do not like this, they can pay for their own server.
This would not be possible on Twitter.
@tange The question is not whether they can have such a server. It is whether a server of that sort should be permitted in the Fediverse and advertised as one of the many that can be joined because it is of no consequence which one you pick. If someone picks that server, there is very much a consequence. And the Fediverse already is not free speech absolutist. So you probably don't want to be a part of this. Things like Gab/Telegram are better for you.
@wasootch I feel we have quite different definitions of what the Fediverse is.
To me the Fediverse is defined by protocol. You seem to have a narrower definition. It is unclear to me which definition you use.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b6/Fediverse_branches_1.2.png
@tange Perhaps you should ask your admins. With the way you look at what the fediverse is, you'd expect to be able to post childporn and expect to stay on the fediverse because you're paying for your server. Nope. Not the way it works. Truth Social is a Mastodon instance, yet is not in the Fediverse. Perhaps look at your own server rules for examples. You seem rather uninformed. Are you just here trolling? You haven't even changed to have an avatar yet.