@vosje62 @thibault
i think it's pretty black and white that threads is the same company whose algos got us into this mess

i think anyone who sees working with meta as benign is naive, at best

and i think mastodon not blocking threads is deeply unserious

you don't get "to play a serious role" serving the very same malice that mastodon was created to oppose

you get laughed at and then discarded

@benroyce, @vosje62, @thibault –

But you didn't respond to Paul's point. Wasn't the whole point of Mastodon to provide an *alternative* client for an *open* network that no individual or company needs permission to use, allowing for a plurality of values and policies across instances?

By all means, pick an inherently walled technology if that's what you want, but asking Mastodon to be that seems like asking Mastodon not to be Mastodon.

@Starfia @vosje62 @thibault

I think at this point we're well past the "if you don't let plutocrats and nazis on your network you're a hypocrite" argument, wouldn't you agree?

Freedom doesn't mean letting actors who oppose freedom free reign- a logically sound point. There is no contradiction

Because we're talking about a social contract

I grant you as much rights as I grant myself

If you use those rights to say someone doesn't deserve rights, you've voided the contract and I owe you nothing

@benroyce, @vosje62 –

I'm not invoking that argument. Freedom to instantiate and manage a server does allow a platform to (ridiculously) oppose such freedom, but of course doesn't amount to the right not to be blocked by anyone or everyone.

@Starfia @vosje62

i'm confused, maybe

this point: "ridiculously"

what do you mean

do you agree that the only way social media will ever function is if you block bigotry and trolls?

is that "opposing freedom" in your view?

i could be completely wrong, i'm just not getting a good bead on what you're saying here perhaps

@benroyce, @vosje62 –

We seemed to be talking about the act of criticizing or opposing the policy that permits such criticism to begin with (such as a person exercising their right to free speech by vocally opposing free speech).

I agree that act is silly and obviously self-contradictory, but I don't think that means it should be an exception to protected speech. Free speech by nature permits all kinds of silly and ridiculous speech.

@Starfia @vosje62

what do you think of this:

everyone is assumed the right to free speech

but if you use that speech to attack freedom, you've abrogated the right

i'm not saying anything original nor profound

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_…

"We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal"

logical paradox in decision-making theory

^{Contributors to Wikimedia projects (Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.)}

Into your complete and utter irrelevance.

Your instance accept anyone, even the worst spammers, and your little behind-the-scene backroom deals with FB and friends are fooling no one.

You have my respect fro writing something usable and useful but it is way past its due-date.

well I would politely suggest that standards of conduct and safety are going to mean more to people than interoperability over the next while.

Perhaps now is a good time to address how to make the out-of-the-box Mastodon experience one where people aren't exposed to white nationalists by default.

You have a chance to do something.