Talk:FediBlock

candidates

instance	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)