@Stealcase I don't know whether a reason was specified, as the only available screenshot is incomplete. If it wasn't, then that is a legitimate problem.

However, in this context, I very much doubt it would have mattered - because people who are genuinely confused normally *ask* what the reason is, rather than immediately picking the most contentious reason available and publicizing it. I've seen that pattern *a lot* as a moderator, and it rarely bodes well for their intentions.

And yes, Mastodon is also not entirely free of this sort of thing, and that is a problem. But that's orthogonal to my point - I'm specifically talking about this particular incident.

@joepie91
From my reading: no reason was specified, since the banned user thought the ban was for "sensitive content", which curator later said wasn't the case.

This incident means something for mastodon .art in general. And what it means is: banning without issuing a warning or reason can and will be used.

-"However, in this context, I very much doubt it would have mattered."

I think it does. This is terrible PR, and creates bad vibes for existing users.

@Stealcase What I mean with "I doubt it would have mattered" is that the user in question seemed to be actively looking for a fight, and so would likely have responded roughly the same if they got a warning instead of a ban. In other words, it would not make the "terrible PR" go away.

@joepie91 I doubt that. Just thinking about myself, I wouldn't have cared if they were warned, then infringed multiple times, then banned. I don't even follow her. I care because of the specific circumstances.

Some of the biggest spanish speaking art accounts on twitter have now collectively agreed that the biggest art instance on mastodon is a little authoritarian for their tastes, based on the evidence.

Doesn't feel very inclusive.

@joepie91 Like, this isn't a kindergarden. This is a mass server, not a small instance, and individuals have blocking tools. If someone has an uncomfortable interaction, its fine to mute, block and move on.

Banning from a server is the nuclear option.
1. It was wielded too freely.
2. Without prior warning (no prior reports).
3. And without stated reason.

@Stealcase "Just block someone who harasses you" is how you create a toxic environment, and inclusivity is certainly not attained by tolerating abusive behaviour. "Keeping up appearances" is not the goal here.

The rules on that instance are very clearly defined, and they exist for good reason. If you cannot or do not want to understand the concept of community safety, then frankly there is nothing for me to further discuss here.

@joepie91 I don't feel crazy saying "Someone losing their account" is the nuclear option compared to "these people don't get along, maybe prevent them from interacting".

You can have it both ways. We can ban bad actors with multiple violations, and we can allow people to mute/block/report when they're uncomfortable. Not every human fits together perfectly. I understand the concept of community safety, but its impossible(!) to always feels safe on a server of 25k people.

@Stealcase It is completely absurd to institute some arbitrary threshold of "multiple violations" as a hard rule, and that only serves to give bad actors more room to be abusive.

It's noticeable how much more concerned you seem to be about the person doing the harassing than about the person being harassed.

@Stealcase Like, to put not too fine a point on it: suggesting a policy of "multiple warnings before a ban" essentially means "sacrificing the safety of a number of community members for the comfort of a bad-faith actor and keeping up an outside appearance of faux objectivity".

That's basically what you're suggesting here. I would suggest learning more about the moderation culture here, who it is meant to serve (hint: not onlookers on birdsite), and why that culture exists.

@joepie91 You can't have a monoculture on a site with 25k users. It works fine for your instance, because you know all your users, and they probably trust you. The fact a ban was issued shows the problem of server scale.

Every threshold we can think of is arbitrary. NSFW is arbitrary. We're social creatures, we figure it out.

I think it's possible to NOT nuke accounts with no warning, while still being intolerant to abuse. These ideas aren't ideologically opposed.

@Stealcase All of those 25k users signed up for that instance by themselves, with clearly defined rules. Those who do not like them, can sign up elsewhere. This is very clearly working fine, and has been for a long time. You are conjuring a problem into existence that doesn't actually exist.

I also have actively moderated communities for many years, and my remaining patience for moderation models that serve abusers (which *particularly* includes legalistic moderation) is firmly at zero. I do not have any interest in further discussing warning policies.

@joepie91
I understand what you're saying re: enabling abuse. You have more experience in this area than me. My perspective is as a relatively new user, not admin.

But because of my perspective,
I believe that this situation was handled badly in a way that erodes trust and makes the server feel less collective and more authoritarian.
And that the negative effects of this are socially a lot bigger than just 1 person getting banned.

@Stealcase Again: this is an imaginary problem. This is well-established policy on mastodon.art, it is very specifically *the reason that people are there*. It is not the job of an instance to look good in public; its job is to protect its community. And mastodon.art does so.

That is frankly where the conversation ends. If this does not sit well with you, then that is ultimately *your* problem, and I would once again implore you to learn more about *why* moderation culture is what it is here.

@joepie91 Alright.

I appreciate your arguments, you've given me some things to think about. Though I wish we'd end up more aligned, people can't agree on everything.

I hope you're right that this is an imaginary problem, and doesn't have any further adverse effects.

Cya around 👋