WelshPixie_Edited_TBS_Convo.txt

Jo @tech.lgbt — 09/10/2023 11:48 AM
https://tech.lgbt/@ShadowJonathan/111040123888700458
tech.lgbt
:jo_2: :v_enby:
:jo_2: :v_enby: (@ShadowJonathan@tech.lgbt)
Content warning: PSA: Don't use thebad.space
i just want to say that i see the current trend of thebad.space to be extremely, extremely concerning
yes, i know the energy required to add receipts, reasons, and other things to be high, but i dont see any other way to go about it without creating a blind-leading-the-blind scenario, where nobody even knows or could even understand why an instance was added to the list in the first place
second, it breaks accountability, since now anyone can add to this list without any real reason. ive seen this happen, where inter-admin disputes are "settled" by adding them to the list for bogus or questionable reasons, but instead of that being as granular as it should be, it becomes binary; this server is listed to suspend, so we'll suspend without regard
Jo @tech.lgbt — 09/10/2023 11:51 AM
this will also create a scenario where people wont remove servers from the list, because they'll keep them on there "just to be safe"

(person explaining no one is added to the directory manually, to contact individual source instances to query blocks/silences)

Jo @tech.lgbt — 09/10/2023 11:53 AM
im not here about that, im here for the trend and presedence this sets
and tbh for a list like this, i'd rather it be manual with receipts, not automatic with no manual clearance

Jo @tech.lgbt — 09/10/2023 11:54 AM
sorry, im also not trying to argue with you, i just wanna poke my concern, im a little more than shaken by this

Jo @tech.lgbt — 09/10/2023 11:54 AM
not by how we're on the list, to some degree i can understand that, but again, about the trend and presedence

(someone asking how this is different from all the other times we've had these same arguments about other blocklists)

Jo @tech.lgbt — 09/10/2023 11:57 AM
okay okay okay

Jo @tech.lgbt — 09/10/2023 11:57 AM
something else i just learned
...why do we have our blocks on this list? 
someone in our mod team just found "blocked by tech.lgbt" in there, and while i can understand the sentiment, i absolutely dont think this is the right way to go about this
we have block reasons hidden to our users for various complex reasons, but if we're contributing to a list like this, we need to also give those reasons with it, so i really, really want to ask if we can have those entries be removed from it
we hide our blocklist to unauthenticated api access due to drama coming from it (mainly about admins asking in emails about why they we blocked them, mass-emails), and we hide our reasoning from our users due to similar of the same, while we're thinking of gradually reversing that, we're not at all prepared to have our blocklist scraped like this, without any of those reasoning, and put in the list

(discussion gets moved into a thread)

Jo @tech.lgbt — 09/10/2023 12:04 PM
My previous messages start from here: ⁠fediblock-discussion⁠

(TLDR; im more concerned about the trend this is setting wrt accountability, than the fact we're on it) 
(i know that sounds very sus and possibly between-the-lines, but im tired of that kinda doubt, and honestly just wanna ask to believe me when i say i just want the best for fedi)

(someone says no one's required to tell you why they blocked someone else)

Jo @tech.lgbt — 09/10/2023 12:06 PM
this is not about that, we exercise that same line, yes, but this is more about what publishing a block list, without receipts, will mean for fedi as a whole, if we all normalise mass-banning entire servers for no other reason than "they said so"
im a firm believer in reviewing fediblock evidence, and having your own reasons why you might or might not block servers

subscribing to a list is never as simple, and its reducing the complex nature of moderation down to an automated process that you can lose oversight over

(someone points out the best blocklists we've had, the Oliphand ones, did not have receipts or rationale)

Jo @tech.lgbt — 09/10/2023 12:08 PM
even that one i did not agree with the methods, but even then there was some sense of accountability and granular trust, even as flawed as it is

but this list seems to take that a step further in the wrong direction, and im worried about the trend, which is reversible, which is the reason im bringing it up in the first place 

(question if it's the trend of blocklists, or blocklists with reasons Jo disagrees with)


Jo @tech.lgbt — 09/10/2023 12:12 PM
----

aside from that, i wanna repeat what i said here: ⁠fediblock-discussion⁠

where apparently some of our users (not us, i just asked around) asked to have our blocks be published on that list

i want these entries removed, since they could have supplied no evidence or receipts to them, since right now we do not provide those to our users

if we want to contribute to a list such as this, we want to do that with receipts in hand, to not exasperbate this problem

Jo @tech.lgbt — 09/10/2023 12:12 PM
the trend of blocklists not containing any receipts, and the easy importing and watching of these lists, without incentivising moderators to review these cases one-by-one for their own instance 

(person: 'null' is a valid reason)

Jo @tech.lgbt — 09/10/2023 12:13 PM
i disagree, if the list is supposed to be public 
its the same as if saying that we dont like person X, for no reason whatsoever, and suddenly everyone agrees to not like X, for no reason

(person: that's the point I was making, that this is the argument against blocklists with reasonss you disagree with)

(another person talks about problems where blocklist imports don't differentiate between silence and suspend)

Jo @tech.lgbt — 09/10/2023 12:16 PM
that is a minor problem compared to the larger problematic trend i see thebad.space setting with this

Jo @tech.lgbt — 09/10/2023 12:17 PM
i find it a lot more concerning than just a "disagreement", i can disagree with someone blocking our server, but i find it concerning when that transforms into something that could tear apart large areas of fedi, and put people into positions of power 
mstdn.social blocking .art for a moment is a great argument against centralising in big any-topic servers like that, just as much as i see this as a great argument for no-receipt blocklists 

(someone links to Ro's 'tweaking' version of TBS which has clearer info)

Jo @tech.lgbt — 09/10/2023 12:19 PM
(we dont block anarchism.space anymore, btw. Another reason i want our blocks removed; they dont sync) 

Jo @tech.lgbt — 09/10/2023 12:19 PM
(just checked, we simply limit them at this time, not block)

(person saying they don't see the issue as people will always argue the reason if it's provided, or lack of reason if it's not, and we've had these arguments dozens of times already)

Jo @tech.lgbt — 09/10/2023 12:20 PM
wym "not good enough"
my opinion is not that this list becomes something you can just blindly import
my opinion is that it turns into a dictionary that people can browse fediblocks on, and nothing else, imo, can ever be healthy to fedi
"reason enough", then, is what the admin who reviews these block reasons, deems it as 

(person clarifies that if null is not good enough, what next is not good enough; too few words, bad block reason?)

Jo @tech.lgbt — 09/10/2023 12:21 PM
receipts.

(PoC asks: so you WANT receipts?)

Jo @tech.lgbt — 09/10/2023 12:22 PM
yes?

(Person: if you want a block list with receipts, make it)

Jo @tech.lgbt — 09/10/2023 12:22 PM
i want to normalise a trend where blocklists provide receipts for why they list the things they have on them

(PoC points out that providing receipts for some users has given them worse harassment compared to what led them to providing receipts in the first place, is not a good option, and backfires in the worst of ways, it's not a solution)

Jo @tech.lgbt — 09/10/2023 12:23 PM
okay, then if that is the case, then blocklists shouldnt exist at all, and only #fediblock and related should do the job

Jo @tech.lgbt — 09/10/2023 12:23 PM
since else, people will just be blind leading the blind, like i said before

(PoC: if people refuse to do moderation work, that's on them, not the list)

Jo @tech.lgbt — 09/10/2023 12:24 PM
out of these options;
blocklist with receipts
#fediblock with receipts
#fediblock without receipts
blocklisty without receipts

the 4th is the most dangerous

(Person points out that this is the same argument that always comes up, and yet blocklists will continue to be distributed regardless)

Jo @tech.lgbt — 09/10/2023 12:25 PM
if people can cause another server to be blocked by a major amount of servers on fedi, for no reason (no accountability), and no awareness of why, and no awareness that could even happen
what do you think then could happen over the long term?
with fedi

(Person: so far it's worked out)

Jo @tech.lgbt — 09/10/2023 12:26 PM
this is why servers banning other servers on their own merits is positively influencing, since it does provide the lines between communities, but if they do so without consideration, even awareness, then suddenly it becomes orbital bombardment at the hands of a single person, with no stopping mechanisms

(person: seems like you're concerned because this time it's you)

Jo @tech.lgbt — 09/10/2023 12:26 PM (in reply to 'so far it's worked out)
sorry, but i seriously, seriously despise this argument 

(PoC: People need to moderate their instances effectively, with care and responsibly. that's not on fediblock or any other mechanism we have.)

Jo @tech.lgbt — 09/10/2023 12:26 PM
"it has worked out so far", i can pull thousands of uspol equivalences, or european equivalences, historical equivalences, to battle that
but i seriously just dont, im too pent-up, thank you for that

(Person: I despise the argument you’re making here, that other people should be subjected to considerably more harassment because you personally disagree with their publishing their choice of reasoning for the blocks)

((I step in at this point to say we're all talking around a thing that Ro can probably directly answer and address and we should all wait for him to be present))

Jo links to https://pleroma.envs.net/objects/ddcef3ac-cad6-4030-924e-0afcc1093ee9

I say yep, that's all the stuff we're discussing in the Trusted Sources channel with all of Ro's Trusted Source instances

Jo @tech.lgbt — 09/10/2023 1:59 PM
https://social.pixie.town/@joepie91/111040728520681776 (more imo good arguments from a friend of mine about "why should blocklists come with receipts")

(Person points out that in the last couple of weeks people in this space have received harassment for providing receipts)

(PoC points out this has happened for years, people shunning victims for posting receipts, people explicitly ignoring receipts to maintain reasons for their abusive behaviour, receipts aren't a great resolution)

(Person asks wasn't it TBS's intention to gather receipts anyway, as a receipts directory? Talks about insulting the creator instead of contacting them, buying into preconceptions and ableism and unrelated jabs at TBS project, no self-reflection about why they might have been on a block list, people bringing up other instances that have *multiple* blocks as 'don't have valid reasons to be blocked', and points out these are the exact ways 'alt-fedi' behaves)

(PoC: Confirms that TBS meant to be a receipts directory, clarifies that they're coming at the receipts posting as if everyone should be obligated to post receitps, which can be dangerous)

(Person says you don't want a blocklist to function as a directory for where to find e.g. CSAM which can happen with reasons given)

(Another person seconds the above)

~Ro joins the conversation at this point. Addresses ALL of the concerns as 'needs to be fixed' or 'already fixed', expresses dislike of how this has all been brought to his attention disingenuously. Basically covers everything in two messages, talks about all concerns, all points Jo raised, everything addressed. ~

A bunch of people thank Ro for taking the time. There is no need for Jo to continue engaging at this point, everything has been addressed by Ro.

Jo @tech.lgbt — 09/10/2023 8:28 PM
I'm making an example of how your blocklist currently functions as an example of a trend im scared will perpetuate across fedi

Sure, it's a work in progress, but that's not made clear anywhere, and so instead the effect that has, is a blocklist that disregards posting receipts, posting reasoning, and then minor mistakes in programming can cause sudden blocks to appear across fedi with no recall, or even awareness, of them happening
I'm criticising your blocklist for what its current effects are, I can share your idea of how it could and should operate, but I'm telling you right now; it currently does more harm than good, with the trend it is setting 

Jo @tech.lgbt — 09/10/2023 8:30 PM
Then delist any and all domains that do not have receipts, and/or give us a deadline and stick to it, and put up a banner that says "there currently are no receipts, but these are planned to be added at X"
The awareness that receipts being present being normalised is more important than the site being up right now, imo
With barely-vetted blocklist items being added Willy nilly, as far as I can see
Sorry for my language, I want to get across how I feel about the urgency about this, as I think you're not properly understanding how much this shocks me

Jo @tech.lgbt — 09/10/2023 8:33 PM
This is not about your list, I believe you can and will fix these issues, but what I'm more afraid of is how this will affect the optics and ideas of "a fedi blocklist", i want to point to the current reality, its effects, and say "this is not what we want"

(Me: Jo, have you brought up these arguments with Oliphant too because they work the same)

Jo @tech.lgbt — 09/10/2023 8:33 PM
You're already well-aware of these problems, so I'm not sure how coming to you could have fixed it, except maybe frame or let it show that I'm shaming your list as a retaliatory measure; I'm not
Jo @tech.lgbt — 09/10/2023 8:36 PM (replying to me asking about Oli)
I would have had arguments with them, and I do have my criticisms, but I never really had a moment of "oh fuck, we need to absolutely not do this", since at least oli's multiple tier system added a bit of granularity (imo), and the list was (in my eyes) actively vetted

But yes, I'd like to have some receipts, but I understand that's not as clear-cut, as the arguments here have shown (thanks for that btw, it helped inform my own idea), but having something instead of a brick wall would've been better than what the effects are right now

Jo @tech.lgbt — 09/10/2023 8:37 PM
For the record, I have done my own investigation into what blocks the sites give, I was only sparked by someone talking about how some domain got added to the list, everything after was simply my own insights into how this site's effects be played out

Jo @tech.lgbt — 09/10/2023 8:38 PM
Alright, we didn't have plans to contribute to any blocklist site anytime soon anyways; could you remove every entry that says "blocked by tech.lgbt"? We didn't consent or ask to have these added, and they most certainly miss the receipts we have internally on those domains 

Jo @tech.lgbt — 09/10/2023 8:42 PM
And again, I want to say that this is not about our instance being on there; it can be on there, but I'm rather more troubled by the reality of what this site perpetuates; a blocklist with identical rubber stamped reasons (poor moderation, hate speech) with no receipts, with a listing that doesn't get properly vetted on import, that people blindly import from, and for which all of that is normalised

If you don't want that, then please either make it impossible to export every block from that list, or make it clear you'd rather not have people do that, in bold letters. If you want to have receipts, make a banner that says that right now the list doesn't contain many of them, but that you'd like to have those, or simply delay adding them to that list until the due diligence and research for that stuff is done.
-----

Please believe me when I say I want to approach this with good faith, I want this to be better, I don't want fedi to normalise this kind of behaviour, but I also think that if you really mean what you say, I see almost no evidence of it, sorry.
You might scoff me off as someone who's here to "sea lion" or "concern troll" your block list, but I can say nothing but "I'm not", I'm scared of what this is doing, and I want to cry wolf about the effects of it

(Ro asks to be addressed directly instead of Jo making the toot and stuff)

Jo @tech.lgbt — 09/10/2023 9:16 PM
sorry, no, I don't know you, nor do I have the obligation to

(response from Ro, calls out the anti-blackness of talking to everyone but him)

Jo @tech.lgbt — 09/10/2023 9:22 PM
I did not mention you in that thread, by the way, and I don't see how this is racism, can you clarify for me?

(Person: comes accross as you talking to everyone except the Black guy in charge)

(Ro says he's already done that)

WelshPixie | She/They | DMs open — 09/10/2023 9:28 PM
So, a bunch of us in here tried addressing your points because they've all come up before and have all been hashed out already, and the way the Oliphant blocklists work, without providing direct receipts, is intentional because it allows admins to minimise harm on their instances (when they import the blocklists and this prevent harassment by the worst instances) while also minimising the harassment and abuse that the contributing instances get, and the arguing in bad faith and dismissal of the receipts that happens every time they are provided. Thus, Oliphant is clear about linking to a couple of different sources of receipts, like TBS and Seirdy's list, while also stating that NOBODY should be blindly importing blocklists and that EVERYONE should do their due diligence and confirm that they agree with the block of every instance that appears on an imported list before adding it as a block.

I understand that you feel the onus should be on the providers of such lists to make sure that admins don't blindly import, and that the current implementation of both Oliphant's blocklists and TBS's repository of receipts do more harm than good, but the opposite is true. Their existence allows entire communities to avoid the kind of gross harassment we all faced that allowed us to build up the lists the hard way. The case you brought up here - that one instance ended up on a blocklist without receipts and then got added to other people's blocklists - is the exception that hardly ever happens, and when it does, the people making the blocklists examine what happened and discuss possible changes to strengthen the blocklist mechanism while protecting everyone involved.
Every instance that's listed on The Bad Space is there for a reason, and the receipts were in the process of being sourced and added. The more absurd thing, to me, is that someone would look at TBS, see that there are instances there without receipts and thus no clear way of knowing why they're there, and then decide to download a CSV of every single entry and add that as a mass blocklist. It's an extreme example because it's an extreme action - that's not the general use case, and the onus should be on instance admins to Do Their Due Diligence, and then bring up possible room for improvement to the people who are working on tools to prevent harassment and prioritise community safety in an open and sincere way.

WelshPixie | She/They | DMs open — 09/10/2023 9:30 PM
The person working on this one is Ro. And instead of going to Ro and saying 'hey someone used your tool in this way which resulted in this instance ending up on some blocklists probably accidentally because I'm not sure they should have been there', you tooted about it in your capacity as moderator warning people entirely off using TBS without first talking about the problem with the person building the tool, then brought it up here, argumentatively, to all of us and then didn't listen to us when we tried talking about it and explaining that we've been through this before.

Jo @tech.lgbt — 09/10/2023 9:42 PM
"PV" harassment? Sorry? (I don't recognise that acronym)

A couple of people briefly explained PV as the instance Ro and Marcia used to run that was harassed off fedi, Jo didn't bring up PV again. The next thing Jo says is 

Jo @tech.lgbt — 09/10/2023 9:44 PM
Sure, but then why hasn't anything been done about it? Why hasn't there been banners, or warnings, that the project is incomplete?

Jo @tech.lgbt — 09/10/2023 9:44 PM
Sure, but then why hasn't anything been done about it? Why hasn't there been banners, or warnings, that the project is incomplete?

Jo @tech.lgbt — 09/10/2023 9:45 PM
Yes, that the project is incomplete and could possibly lead to misinterpretation, so as to warn admins that they should double check their work
If I hadn't been told that, I would assume that this was the project as-is, apparently it's not

WelshPixie | She/They | DMs open — 09/10/2023 9:45 PM
Ro talks about it all the time from his account and on his Patreon. As he keeps saying, he's very open about the whole process and where it's at and what the current limitations are.

The thing is, every instance that's on TBS is from Oli's T1 or T0 blocklist. They're all instances that have a reason to be there, for someone.

(Ro points out Jo's still talking to everyone else but him)

Jo @tech.lgbt — 09/10/2023 9:47 PM
I'm talking to everyone here
You're replying this a waste of time, I'm trying to convince you it's not, by giving my arguments

Jo @tech.lgbt — 09/10/2023 9:48 PM
I'm sorry, I just want a banner

Jo @tech.lgbt — 09/10/2023 9:48 PM
Sorry, I'm here for moderation related content too, if you don't want me to talk about TBS, that's fine, I won't, and you can block me to prevent seeing my posts
We can all be amicable here, I just wanted to bring up a point

~ This is where I kick Jo ~