@tchambers @tchambers Folks are not protected if you federate with an instance run by a company that is incapable of moderating its platform.
Either you're saying that people will be hurt, or you're telling people that to be safe they shouldn't use your server. An open network means that people should be safe throughout the space. Here's your forewarning on what is to come. Now that you are armed with this information, please do the right thing for your users. https://www.vice.com/en/article/dy33ww/facebook-anti-trans-harassment
@tchambers there is no question that meta is incapable of properly moderating their platforms. You are telling your users that someone(s) must get hurt before you will do anything. Moderation is never simply reactive, there is also a pro-active element to it as well. And we have overwhelming evidence that federation with meta will cause harm to people commonly targeted for harassment and abuse. This breaks the first item of the Mastodon Server Covenant.
➡️ To defend against poorly moderated P92 users & ad spam.
We have all the tools for that now - as users & as admins, and deal with exactly this from poorly moderated servers EVERY. SINGLE. DAY. And if we find ANY server not responsive THEN we block. Protecting our users is our 1st job but we have all we need - WITHOUT first strike defederation.
The third argument I'll look at next is to avoid #EEEE - "Embrace, Extend, and Extinguish."
With the upcoming #meta#Project92 Fediverse service, there has been a, well, *robust* discussion of how to avoid threats looming. Those advocating mass-preemptive defederation make three cases for it.
➡️ To avoid data mining ...which Defederation does virtually zero to avoid any big tech entity scraping all the fedi public social graph today - Want proof? see: https://is.gd/q8U2pv
The next argument is about poorly moderated P92 user posts and ad spam. Which I'll discuss next.