Sat 18 Nov 2017 3:24AM

Federation Policy

FHM Fabián Heredia Montiel Public Seen by 284

I think that while the Code of Conduct will take more time and effort, a simple Federation Policy might improve the Federated Timeline and the overall social.coop experience.

Federation Policy

  1. An instance will be silenced if it meets any of the following criteria:
  • Explicitly allows something forbidden by Social.coop's Code of Conduct
  • The instance has as one of its goals shitposting or the instance has no moderation policy.

The following are examples of any of the instances that would be silenced:

  • sealion.club (shitposting)
  • shitposter.club (shitposting)
  • toot.love (no moderation)

Fabián Heredia Montiel Sat 18 Nov 2017 3:27AM

I want to add that silencing an instance removes it from the Federated Timeline and Mutes all notifications from that instance.*

  • Except for users one follows, their toots/retoots will show up on the Federated Timeline and one will recieve notifications from that user.

@h Sat 18 Nov 2017 3:35AM

I would favour a three-strikes policy. If after three requests they can't herd their cats in manners consistent with social.coop's accepted rules, and their behaviour persists, that means that they're incapable of or unwilling to keep their instance users under check (independently of whatever their stated policies declare). That makes their content inherently incompatible, and thusly shouldn't be accepted / federated.
Taking their declared intent at face value would be a blank cheque, that wouldn't work because all of these trolls and other pests claim to be for "free speech".

When they identify things they don't like (i.e. left wing politics, brown and black people) they hide behind the flag of free speech to conceal their actual motives (racism, fascism).
I believe a three-strikes notice (or some other similar method) for behaviour inconsistent with our rules would pre-emptively render the free speech discussion moot.

Less waste of time and energies.


Fabián Heredia Montiel Sat 18 Nov 2017 3:57AM

I think that the three-strike policy isn't that necessary since this is an instance-to-instance policy.

Ie, the three ways (incompatible CoC, or shitposting, or free speech* as you described) in which an instance would be silenced would change slowly and an instance would either "not-mind" or would have a path to become compatible with the Federation Policy.

This is a small step to clearing the federated timeline and notifications and we would still need to takes steps towards a Code of Conduct and a Moderation Policy.

@h Sat 18 Nov 2017 4:57AM

I see what you mean. If it's intended as a small cleanup step, then that's fine. Leave the more complex edge cases for later then.


Poll Created Mon 20 Aug 2018 9:42PM

Give the standing jury power to mute an instance dedicated to shitposting, without moderation(freespeech tm) or with CoCs incompatible with our drafts. Closed Mon 27 Aug 2018 9:02PM

Jury will be able to decide on a case by case basis while a Federation Policy and CoC are enacted.


Results Option % of points Voters
Abstain 13.6% 3 MC GIM NS
Disagree 13.6% 3 AW SG MN
Block 0.0% 0  
Undecided 0% 14 NS C T TB JG SJK MDB ES EM LO CB L ED ES

22 of 36 people have participated (61%)


Edward L Platt
Mon 20 Aug 2018 9:48PM

Hoping there will be transparency in the process.


Simon Grant
Mon 20 Aug 2018 9:50PM

Sounds sensible, though I'd like to hear about related experiences, to be wholly clear.


Aaron Wolf
Mon 20 Aug 2018 9:53PM

I don't support this as worded. I don't like the idea of silencing instances just because they don't themselves have effectively matching CoCs. Dedication to "shitposting" (I assume "shitposhing" was a typo) seems justified for silence though.

Mon 20 Aug 2018 10:01PM

A higher bar should be set for silencing whole instances than for individuals. This vote should be understood as a temporary vote of confidence to resolve currently outstanding issues meanwhile the appropriate decisionmaking process takes place.


Matt Noyes
Mon 20 Aug 2018 10:06PM

I agree with @h and Edward L Platt. Also, it seems better to have an identified group be making these decisions. The cases need to be publicized on social.coop: "XYZ instance was silenced on Aug 23rd 2018 because..."

Load More