This post is not only to try finding the best Mastodon instance/server but I also wanted to express about the Mastodon instances. Most of Mastodon servers are apparently harsh about other instances that include things they don’t like and are quite serious about getting those Internet points putting how the place isn’t welcome for “bigotry” and is for everyone and so diverse, and I wouldn’t have any problems with this if this wasn’t frequently used by people who will try to shut you if they disagree enough with you and will try to present themselves as so virtuous. You’d expect that the free side of the Internet would have people that value freedom and should let anything that isn’t a crime or something that prejudice the instance itself or whatever space they’re in but it seems this vision is getting far from the reality with time.
I find this a very odd take… You are free to say whatever you want, however people are also free to not listen to you. Why is the freedom to not listen seen as a “lesser” freedom than the freedom to say what you want?
The main benefit of federation like Mastodon and Lemmy is that if you and like-minded people in your community don’t wish to listen to vitriol being spewed then you don’t have to. Don’t like it? Go and find an instance that does tolerate it and does want to listen.
The thing is that instances are not the individuals themselves but spaces for individuals. Sure the instances are driven by people but as they are publicly available and are tools for the communication of people and are susceptible to a different set of ethics; while you as an individual can just ignore people that think differently from you, restricting a tool/product from someone cause they think differently is and has to be seen as dumb and bad. I know the federated Internet is the best thing to freedom, otherwise I would’ve bought the Twitter premium thing and dyed my hair blue to bully people all day in there. However, the fact that people join the libre Internet, not only hate freedom for other people but also want to isolate people that believe the individual should be free from the major part of the FREE Internet just seems stupid to me.
You knocked the nail on the head with the first sentence.
The thing is that instances are not the individuals themselves but spaces for individuals
With federation you can join like minded spaces, nobody is forcing anybody to join a particular instance. The whole thing is about freedom and choice yet you seem to want to limit that choice for people?
It doesn’t limit the choice of people (it’s quite the opposite actually). It’s limiting people access and restricting people from the tool itself instead of letting the people themselves isolating naturally their groups without restraining others’ liberties. They can do anything as a private space but that doesn’t mean everything every decision is good and can’t be criticized. Also, I defend the right of those instances to be assholes even if I disagree with everything and if someone would try to FORCE a specific set of rules on any instance I would stand for their rights; bit again, that doesn’t make them free of doing bad things with their rights or from criticizing, and my criticism is that the Internet should be free as in freedom.
I also agree they have the right to be twats… On their own instance and with a way for others to not listen. I’m not really sure what the argument here actually is.
- Group 1 are saying things that Group 2 don’t like
- Group 2 create a community with similar ideals and openly announce they are not going to be listening to anything from Group 1
- People from Group 2 join that instance because they know the people administering it will be monitoring and removing content they don’t like
- Group 1 start crying about not being able to shout at Group 2 who are perfectly happy not having to see anything at all from Group 1.
- Group 1 are perfectly free to do exactly the same thing. They can create their own community and federate with people who don’t mind what they are saying.
The whole thing is entirely free and fair - you can say what you want and you can block out what you want. I’m not sure I understand what the criticism is other than wanting to shout at people who don’t want to hear it.
counterpoint: you’re FREE to simply start your own instance and run it how you like? who are you to demand (or even to criticize) others for running an instance according to their own ethics and standards simply because you disagree, especially when you are free to run one by your own? do they not have the same freedom to do so as do you?
If I should be restricted to not criticize the instance then why are you criticizing me? I’m a smaller unit than the instances so according to you I weren’t supposed to be able to be criticized.
If I should be restricted to not criticize the instance then why are you criticizing me?
how did I criticize you by asking you to explain your logic?
I’m a smaller unit than the instances so according to you I weren’t supposed to be able to be criticized.
in what way is that true if you have the same ability to create your instance with your own rules and standards?
and you still haven’t answered my question: who are you to demand (or even to criticize) others for running an instance according to their own ethics and standards simply because you disagree, especially when you are free to run one by your own?
You talk like I can answer you before you’ve posted the text. Also, you saying I can’t criticize an instance for their decisions for whatever reason is still quite of criticizing (despite making no sense but okay).
I’m not “talking like” anything, nor am I criticizing you— I simply asked you questions which you seem to be unable to or refusing to answer— and claiming to be incapable of comprehending.
You literally sent in the same message a question and said I’m refusing to answer your question, in the same message.
The paradox of tolerance states that if a society is tolerant without limit, its ability to be tolerant is eventually seized or destroyed by the intolerant. Karl Popper described it as the seemingly self-contradictory idea that in order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must retain the right to be intolerant of intolerance.
Mind you, the second half of the text is wrong (like unironically and objectively, despite I agreeing with the second half, contradicts the first half.
No it doesn’t. There is no contradiction there. You’re talking nonsense.
Do you know how Goebbels infamously described the Weimar Republic’s attitude towards the Nazi Party?
Essentially, if you’re not familiar, Goebbels was quoted as saying something along the lines of “I have no idea why they allowed us to exist in their system and take power. It should have been obvious that as soon as we gained power, we’d use that power to dismantle the system and ban the traditional parties from politics. Anyone with half a brain would have realized that and banned us first.” Then he cackled like a witch.
Ok I made up the part about the cackle.
in what way? if it’s so wrong, it should be easy for you to prove, logically.
First half is saying tolerance to the intolerant causes intolerance while the second half is saying intolerance to the intolerant causes intolerance. It is a writing error, I wasn’t talking about the idea itself despite I disagreeing with it.
that’s not an error by the writer, that’s an error in your understanding of the text and the meaning of the word “paradox”.
So he agrees with both statements? That makes him a paradox for agree with opposite ideas so.
lol, no. of course not.
I understand what the text tried to say and I disagree but I want to point out the writing itself is wrong and not the writer ideas. If you try to re-read the text you can notice the writing unintentionally implies different things despite being supposed to be the same.
The beauty of the Fediverse is that anyone can set up an instance and, if a bunch of Nazis, for example, did that then it needn’t be an issue for as, in the normal run of things, I wouldn’t just stumble across it, I’d need to seek it out.
Where that Nazi instance would become an issue is if:
-
Their content is illegal in the country another instance is based in (for example Germany), as anyone subscribing to a community on the Nazi server from another instance is causing that content to be drawn over and displayed in another instance. It happened recently with issues arising from lolicon.
-
The Nazis decide to stir the hornets nest and start cross-posting objectionable content or just being unpleasant trolls. If an instance becomes known as a hotbed of trolls and bots it is likely to be cut off by the main instance.
Neither example is anyone scoring “Internet points”.
Yes, that’s the part where I said in most part only illegal content and things that prejudice the instance itself like bots and spam overall should be prohibited.
-
Geesh. Major downvotes here for you. That doesn’t bode well for any of us that care to be NOT hard left on like every issue. I’m hoping there is a little more balance here on Lemmy but perhaps not. The politics section is just more Trump, Trump but no mention of Biden or his sons shenanigans. There are more examples but we’ll see how it goes.
I know people like to chat with those who are like minded but I actually enjoy debating and discussing issues with people I might not agree with. It’s refreshing if carried on properly and agreeing with people on everything gets boring after a while, right ? :)
