Indeed.
tcely
joined 1 year ago
After creating an account and agreeing to follow the rules they aren't an outsider anymore.
Why would it matter to you if the people who do have an account here voted to add a new rule then?
Your own instance has the set of rules you need to follow. Do you want to let us decide what those will be?
I don't want people who haven't agreed to follow the same set of rules deciding what the rules are that I must follow.
It's like how much of the world decided it didn't enjoy colonial rule so much.
Ugh. That was satire, not a playbook.
I think discussion should be open to anyone, but voting should only be by those who will be bound by the changed rules.
People with accounts on other instances have their own sets of rules to be concerned with and are not obligated to follow the rules decided on and implemented by this instance.
Before de-federation we should talk to the admin/mods and also ban the accounts causing the problem.
I don't think de-federation should be used to clean up the "all" feed, that is not at all appropriate or useful.
High volume of bad faith reports from the target instance on users here (e.g., if someone talks about racism here and a hostile instance reports it for "white genocide" or some other bs). This may seem obscure, but it's a real issue on Mastodon.
There is no way we should defederate an instance because of this. Particularly, as we know reports will grow as the number of users does over time anyway.
Breaking the users' experience because your tooling is insufficient is a bad look.
I would absolutely support keeping Meta away.
The known downsides far out weigh the potential benefits.
A moderation bot that collated reports against rules and selected active users to vote on if the rule was broken or not seems like a useful thing to create to me.
Batching these into small groups and assembling a jury to decide if a particular rule was broken by each of the 1-7 reported posts should be a short task for the people involved. As long as the same people don't always end up being selected for the jury the results should be mostly good too.
I agree that using total users would not be workable.
The best set of possible voters is only those that have read about the issue being decided.
I'd put local users subscribed to the community as the next best available set.
Then active local users.
Finally, the set of local users.
I believe we should be able to get a number for any of these sets, so using the third or fourth best option should not be necessary.