The majority of Mastodon servers. And if you are on a minority, your server is probably blocked by the majority. So it's a general problem on Mastodon, not just one of specific servers.
I'm not a fan of the moderation policies from some in the more popular servers and I certainly don't like the idea of some overzealous moderator blocking whole instances, but this has nothing to do with (system-wide) censorship.
If each instance is a home, we should expect to follow their owner's rules when we are there. No owner is forced to give you a soapbox in their home for you to talk. If you want to have your own space, with your own rules, you are free to do so. You can invite whoever you want to your home and no one is going to come after you for the things you say in your home.
> I'm not a fan of the moderation policies from some in the more popular servers and I certainly don't like the idea of some overzealous moderator blocking whole instances, but this has nothing to do with (system-wide) censorship.
It has a lot to do with system wide censorship, as in the end the effect is approximately similar.
> If each instance is a home
That analogy is bad, as you could equally say that each social network "is a home" and therefore can censor everyone without mercy. You could even say that each country is "a home", and if you don't like state censorship, just emigrate etc.
> That analogy is bad, as you could equally say that each social network "is a home" and therefore can censor everyone without mercy.
And that would be perfectly justifiable. None of the big social media networks are forced to provide service to a customer that they don't want. It's not an utility, it should not be treated as such.
> if you don't like state censorship, just emigrate etc.
- The cost of creating a Mastodon instance for yourself is negligible compared to the cost of moving to a different country
- To "emigrate" to a different country implies having to abandon your original home country. In some cases, it even means having to renounce your original citizenship. Online, you can have different digital identities.
All that is being asked of you is to respect the rules of the home you are in. If this is difficult for you to understand, it's not a problem of your social peers.
> And that would be perfectly justifiable. None of the big social media networks are forced to provide service to a customer that they don't want. It's not an utility, it should not be treated as such.
The effect of big social media sites blocking free speech are not much different from the state doing it. It's like saying: "You are perfectly allowed to state your opinions! (but only at home, where nobody hears them)" This wouldn't be functionally different from the situation in China.
> The cost of creating a Mastodon instance for yourself
Doesn't solve the problem, as free speech instances get blocked by the other big instances.
Your problem is not of "free speech". Your problem is that you feel entitled to other people's attention, and you think if you are not "getting heard" by them, you are being censored.
Sorry, this is complete bullshit.
> but only at home, where nobody hears them
You can still invite people to your own home. If nobody is hearing it, it's because they are not interested to join you.
> Your problem is not of "free speech". Your problem is that you feel entitled to other people's attention, and you think if you are not "getting heard" by them, you are being censored.
That's false. On social media, everyone is free to follow just the people they want to follow. Muting is also an option.
Your problem is that you hate free speech. You don't want to just choose what you see yourself, you want also censor what other people are allowed see.
> You can still invite people to your own home.
Yes, that's possible in China as well. According to you, this justifies state censorship. After all, you are only censored in public on social media.
> That's false. On social media, everyone is free to follow just the people they want to follow. Muting is also an option.
This right here shows why you don´t understand why instance-wide blocking might be needed.
I can give you one clear example: my instance is running in Germany. As such, I need to comply with German laws. Now, if anyone from my instance follows someone from a "free speech extremist" instance and my server ends up with Nazi propaganda, guess who will be under investigation?
Substitute "Nazi propaganda" for "instances for sex-workers who might be victims of people trafficking" if you prefer.
> Yes, that's possible in China as well.
No, it's not. The Chinese police will come after you if you try to organize any type of opposition and they will have the power to hurt you without a fair trial.
Eugen is not going to do anything with you if you go talk shit about him on your instance. I know because I did it. ;)
> I can give you one clear example: my instance is running in Germany. As such, I need to comply with German laws.
Of course no admin can do anything about the law. That's in fact what Elon Musk said: The platform should only censor as much as is required by the law. But in practice on Mastodon much more is censored than on Twitter.
> The Chinese police will come after you if you try to organize any type of opposition
The Chinese police will certainly not come if you utter your opinions in your own home, precisely because nobody will hear them. Restricting free speech only to areas where it can't be heared isn't free speech.
> will certainly not come (...) because nobody will hear them
> Restricting free speech only to areas where it can't be heared (sic) isn't free speech.
You missed the part where I said you can invite others and use that space to organize opposition. Was that intentional?
Also, I can't believe that you are making me say it:
- There is no global/universal definition of what is Free Speech.
- You don't get to decide what is or not "Free Speech".
- Even in the US, "Protection of Free Speech" is only about avoid persecution from the Government, not about being able to say whatever crap you want without consequences.
God, even for a conservative like me, this shit is tiring...
> "Protection of Free Speech" is only about avoid persecution from the Government, not about being able to say whatever crap you want without consequences.
The same thing could be said to you when your political opinions get censored. But it seems you can't imagine that.
I don't post things on social networks but I follow people. There are plenty of examples where people on Twitter (pre Musk) got censored for alleged "hate speech", which was just an excuse to censor tweets or people the (yes, far-left) censors hated.
And it never occurred to you to tell them "hey, if Twitter is blocking you, you can use these alternative networks where you get to control your presence so you don't get censored, and I will follow there"?
Shit, has it never occurred to them? Are you telling me that the overwhelming majority of the right wing influencers sees themselves as beholden to Big Tech that much? Wouldn't you at least consider the possibility that all this talk about "censorship" is just a lame excuse to rile up gullible people into a "fight" that doesn't really benefit anyone but themselves?
It is totally different than the state doing it, because people are free to associate with other websites, but are not free to associate with other nations.
Imagine if the major social networking sites censored a certain opinion. The effect would be basically the same. Just like if Google removed your website because they don't like your political opinion.
Ok I imagined it, and once again noticed that, no, the "effect" is not the same at all, because once again I'm free to associate with other websites that do not choose to remove my opinion.
But Google's market dominance is so high that most people won't see your website because it is blocked on Google. The result would be almost the same as if it was blocked everywhere.
You're so close to getting it. It's a good analogy because you could equally say that each social network "is a home". That is indeed the case.
And yes, countries do indeed also get to choose their own laws through their own government process. I'm happy to live in a country where our laws forbid government restrictions on speech but allow private "homes" to make their own rules. I think that's the right balance. But I don't get to tell other nations what their laws should be.
You mean if the government of that nation censors speech that challenges the status quo? I think it's very bad for governments to do that, and would go to some length to ensure that the government of my own nation does not allow that, but I also don't get a direct say in what the governments of other nations do and how the citizens of those nations respond. I can certainly criticize from afar, but I don't get to vote or protest or fight to change the laws of those nations.
No. The private freedom of association is important. I'm similarly free to disagree with the choices the social network makes, as are you. But it is not bad for them to make their own choices, it's good.
My instance is not "left-wing", I have had plenty of (civil) arguments with people all around the spectrum and no one is trying to cancel me because of that. I also have so far managed to go by without having to block any instance (but I did personally block a bunch of trolls and assholes from poa.st and fse)
I was initially inclined to invite you to my instance as well, but I'm starting to get the feeling that you are more interested in not being called out for any BS you put out than in a healthy social discourse.
The large instances block other instances whose politics they don't like, and since the majority of Mastodon has a certain political direction, that in turn results in homogeneity in which political direction is blocked. It's admin tribalism that goes beyond what individual users can decide.
- Why doesn't Jordan Peterson (which I bought the book, watched the videos and love to rewatch destroying Cathy Newman) take his thinkspot.com platform and make a Mastodon version out of it?
- Why no popular conservative figurehead left Twitter to create their own server on the Fediverse?
Twitter no longer censors right-wing people like in the past, so there is no need for them to switch. Twitter still doesn't censor left-wing people, but the left-wing people preferred the previous situation where right-wing people (their political enemy) did get censored. So many of the left-wing people were upset with the subjectively worse situation, so they switched to Mastodon, which is why most of Mastodon is very left-leaning.
You are so invested in the cultural wars, you didn't even stop to think about I asked and you rushed to find a rationalization to explain the current situation.
Some more questions for you to ponder:
- why hasn't the right wing got out of Twitter when it was dominated by the left?
- why was Mastodon popular for the woke leftist crowd since, I don't know, 2020?
- Jordan Peterson is still complaining about YouTube censoring/blocking/demonetizing his videos. Why doesn't he make his own Peertube?
Does it matter? It didn't stop Trump from creating Truth.social, did it?
Why couldn't other right-wing influencers get together and do something similar? Perhaps because there never was actual censorship?
Perhaps they just attracted more suckers to support them by bitching and moaning about "censorship" and "deplatforming" than if they went on and actually took control of their own social media presence.
Yeah, it's a trick question.