Talk:FediBlock

candidates

instance	when blocked?	block reason(s)	links ‼️cw‼️	block count	up/down last checked
niscii.xyz				18	2022-11-28
novoa.nagoya				34	2022-11-28
hallsofamenti.io				34	2022-11-28
glindr.org				139	2022-11-26
skippers-bin.com				75	2022-11-28
nnia.space				68	2022-11-28
tastingtraffic.net				67	2022-11-28
catgirl.life				63	2022-11-28
vuju.com				26	2022-11-28

bea.st misspelling?

Should this be bae.st instead?
--IgnisIncendio2 (talk) 08:34, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Should be both actually. I'll add bae.st

--Paula (talk) 08:41, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

No you were right. Bea.st is a completely unrelated site.

--Paula (talk) 14:00, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

CSV file

I appreciate the way the table is laid out, because it was quite easy to paste into a CSV file that can be imported into GlitchSoc or Ecko Mastodon forks. I was able to import the blocklist that way (it's just... too many to check through, unfortunately). Is this allowed? Should I upload it here? :O --IgnisIncendio2 (talk) 04:34, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm against sharing a .csv file of the list as people will just import it without checking the instances first themselves.

--Paula (talk) 18:11, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Remove qoto from the list?

I'd like to lobby to have qoto.org removed from the list; the reasons given ("no moderation" and "free speech") are just wrong. qoto has moderation, like any reasonable server, and it's not some "free speech" nuthouse. The thing that it doesn't do, and that some people don't like it for, is that it doesn't defederate in most cases (there are exceptions); the rationale for this policy is nicely described here: https://qoto.org/@freemo/109319817943835261

There are people who don't like the main mod, think his politics are too centrist, or whatever, but that shouldn't lead to blocking the whole server unless it has some impact on the server's moderation or behavior (which it hasn't). The thread pointed to in the table is pretty much entirely a few people who just don't like the guy and don't like some proposal that he put on github; nothing about actual server moderation or behavior. It even ends with someone saying "oh, I misread this because I thought it said hate speech WAS allowed, but it says that it ISN'T, oops my bad" or other words to that effect. This doesn't seem like a great reason for blocking!

People are citing this list commonly as some authoritative list of nastybad servers; since qoto.org seems to be on it for reasons that aren't actually true, could it be removed?

Thanks! http://qoto.org/@ceoln

Did you even read the provided link? As stated there there are many reasons why qoto is on fediblock lists. And the moderator clearly states that he wouldn't moderate for racism.

So I see no reason to take qoto off the list.

--Paula (talk) 07:02, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

The evidence provided was taken completely out of context, and dishonest, not to mention leaves out very important details. I will address each one and show the photto evidence, which be more than sufficient to remove QOTO from the list presuming this is an evidence-based block list.

First off the full context of the conversation quoted out of context is seen here: (https://qoto.org/@freemo/109405618861950255)[1]

As is obvious from the screen shots above we were not talking about blocking users but servers. We do moderate heavily, and specifically racism, our terms of service are quite clear on that and no racist content can be found on our timeline. see here: https://qoto.org/about/more

Second as for CSAM/child porn. When asked we had no rules about how to handle it since we never had any. Our rules page can only be updated with a majority vote from the moderators of the instance (which i clearly say as such).. moments after that conversation we had a vote and explicitly added the banning of CSAM material, both WRT defederating from other servers, and within our own community. You can now find that on our ToS page explicitly stated as linked above. See here for me addressing this with screen shots: https://qoto.org/@freemo/109398932541172700

As for the UFI document, that has no relationship to QOTO of any kind. I am authoring it, but QOTO is not a part of the UFI, so no relevance there. I will point out the clause about nudity also explicitly defines nudity as genitalia and sexual penetration only, not toplessness. Moreover the clause about "Explicit hate based racism" has been removed since "explicit" is too restrictive. The recent version of hte UFI draft can be seen here and clearly shows improved wording over the screen shot: https://ufoi.gitlab.io/constitution/united_federation_of_instances_proposal.pdf

I find it quitte discrediting of this list to include clear manipulative "evidence" without providing the counter evidence, lets hope this resolves it. I will for now at a minimum add the full context of the conversation into the wiki.

full thread added here: https://joinfediverse.wiki/File:Qoto-dm-csam-1.png#/media/File:Qoto-dm-csam-1.png and https://joinfediverse.wiki/File:Qoto-dm-csam-2.png#/media/File:Qoto-dm-csam-2.png

Here is a quote from our ToC regarding racism, and it makes it quite clear we DO moderate racism and the screenshot clearly a lie: "We do not allow people to disseminate ideologies that are abusive or violent towards others. Demonstrating support for or defending ideologies known to be violent or hateful is a bannable offense. This includes, but is not limited to: racial supremacy, anti-LGBTQ or anti-cis-gender/anti-straight, pro-genocide, child abuse or child pornography, etc. While we recognize questions and conversation regarding these topics are essential for a STEM community, in general, doing so in bad faith will result in immediate expulsion."

So in summary I provided clear evidence that all the claims in the original post were misleading or straight out false.. 1) I showed clear evidence within minutes we added bans for CSAM 2) Showed evidence we DO and always have blocked for racsim, we just dont defederate for it (for the safety of our LGBTQ and at their request) 3) I demonstrated the UFI stuff has no association with QOTO and was fixed in later drafts... now that all points have been disproven please reconsider the block.

JeffreyFreeman (talk) 10:38, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

That conversation you are quoting gives me a hundred reasons to block qoto. If qoto really wanted to get off blocklists then they should change their fucked up policies. You can't have it both ways.

--Paula (talk) 11:21, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

I have continually changed policies based on public feedback. If you'd like me to take your advice and make changes, however, you need to be more explicit on what you want... For starters you say this conversation gives you a "hundred reasons" to block QOTO. Would you ming listing some or all of these reasons so I can actually consider what I need to address, I dont see what those could be. You also say we need to make changes to our policy, again can you be specific about which policies you feel we need to change, happy to bring it up to the community if the issue hasnt already been considered.

Will be waiting to see if you at a minimum provide the full context of the conversation ont he block list.. this will indicate if you are a good-faitth block list that provides the **full** evidence for people to decide or if you just want to manipulate people and sell only your personal opinion and silence the evidence that contradicts that... please let me know what you decide

JeffreyFreeman (talk) 11:26, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

If you don't see it yourself, then you clearly don't want to see it and I don't need someone like you on my wiki. Goodbye.

--Paula (talk) 11:36, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

First-first (added after the below first), I noticed the How to use this list and "don't block without checking yourself", which I give a big thumbs up to. This does show that the author is trying to encourage you to think for yourself. Sadly, I think many people won't follow it, but at least the advice is there.

First of all, I am a qoto user, https://qoto.org/@sgryphon, so I have a personal interest in not getting banned; I'd like to be able to interact with users on other servers. Same motivation as original poster.

Second of all, the admin / main admin, does seem angry at being banned from instances (probably because users are complaining to him why they are blocked; I know I have, when I found qoto on some block lists, I asked why). Also, his recent reaction to being banned seems to have gotten out of hand, with personal attacks (calling others Nazis and fascists). Not the best way to make friends.

"Did you even read the provided link? And the moderator clearly states that he wouldn't moderate for racism."

Links on the previous page? there are two links. Also, I think the term moderation needs clarification: the server does moderate users (of Qoto) for racisim (it is against the terms of the server), but does not pre-emptively moderate entire federated servers by suspending them. So "wouldn't moderate for racism" is both true and false (because the term moderation applies to both users and servers). https://docs.joinmastodon.org/admin/moderation/

(1) Starts with "They were defederated for many reasons (some receipts attached)"

I'm not sure what receipts are, but I presume they are the screen shots attached. There were also a lot of phrases used in the discussion & links that I had to look up, like "dog whistle", "sealioning", "kiwi farms".

First receipt is a quote "wouldn't ban for racism"; note that this is talking about not silencing/banning other servers, with the explict reasons given (to monitor and expose). Note that racism is against the moderation rules of Qoto itself. Server rules are here: https://qoto.org/about/more . This is a valid issue, but probably best to clarify e.g. "moderates local users for racism; but does not defederate other servers" (otherwise it seems misleading that qoto does not moderate user)

Second receipt says they have never had a complaint about child porn, but will follow due process; which they have done and now added to their rules. I'm not sure why this is an issue (they took feedback, and updated rules; for a problem they have never had)

Third receipt is post-hoc reaction to the banning trying to set up some process. This can't be a reason for the initial banning, and seems a bit circular.

There is also a mention of emailing admins and asking for the block to be removed. I don't know how often he has done this. A single polite email to ask to remove a block is not harrassment, but if he has done it multiple times then you should probably provide that as stronger evidence.

(2) Is a complaint about the block. Freemo does make a personal attack by initially calling Paula a dictator, and then later agreeing with another commentator effectively calling her a fascist. This also seems rather circular, to say the evidence for the block is that he complained about the block.

What I am not actually seeing is any bad posts/content from the users of the server such as racism, etc. i.e. the actual things that should probably get the entire server banned. Public timeline of the server is here: https://qoto.org/public

If there is evidence of horrid posts coming from the server, with no action by the moderators, (rather than just the moderator complaining and getting into fights about getting banned), then I would like to know, so that I can reconsider if I want to stay on qoto or not.

Maybe you want to ban the moderator (e.g. for harassment) but I don't think you should ban the entire server?

[signature and timestamp missing]

Move to or from "Instances that are down" list

If I made a mistake or an instance is no longer up/down please list it here so I can move it.