So now I've had a conversation with a moderator at Fosstodon.

It seems as though, despite the sites pretty bold CoC prohibition on "public or private oppressive language or actions" (language they borrowed from elsewhere), they construe that prohobition much more narrowly than is written.

In fact they allow a great deal of oppressive language, if you don't @ anyone directly.

This contradiction bolsters my inclination to suspend the instance—until they decide to enforce their CoC as written.

@lawremipsum hey, i thought this take was correct beforehand, pleased to hear that you confirmed it. like i'm not on your instance, i just prefer hearing stuff from people who were there

technically, @codesections is telling the truth, since this is prefaced with "our practice has been"

But Kev's snowflake post is still up, so it looks like the practice in question is still ongoing

Moderator ratio isn't worth much if there isn't an actual willingness to enforce the CoC, as there appears not to be, when it comes to an admin.

@codesections what you said was "Our practice has been to draw a distinction between 'speech to' and 'speech about'"

That distinction isn't in the CoC, and it isn't in the spirit of the text of that document, so to me, it is a narrowing construction.

Let me know if the practice changes.

You might consider running the practice by the original author(s) to see whether they agree its consistent with the text. Seems clear to me it isn't.

@codesections Alternatively, is my post about Gamma the Techbro a personal attack? It's clearly written in response to certain events and certain people, even if the details are fuzzed a bit.

The honest answer here is, "it depends," which means its a gray area so arbitrated by the admins/mods.

Grey areas are usually beneficial to the status quo and harmful to those who disagree - after all, look at the grey area of Kev's post; the default is inaction: complicity.



The argument could be made that regardless, because it's kinda shady, my post is uncouth and so warrants blocking as though it were a more obvious personal attack.

But what if I only phrased it this way because I'm concerned about harassment? I don't see another way to say it, realistically, without being so general that it's not really informational about the situation I mean to talk about.

@codesections I bring this stuff up, I know I bowed out of the early conversation because I got emotional, because I want to highlight how easy it is for deliberation and inaction to bias things toward those who have the power already, and given how "those who have the power" tends to be "privileged collaborators with systems of oppression," that is, as I see it, incompatible with inclusivity.

(I don't have more to say on this, past this message, bye again, lol. 3/3)

@codesections there are intermediate steps, including conversations, public apologies, other soft forms of authority.

I just think it's deceptive for Fosstodon to have an anti-oppression CoC but read it in a way that tolerates oppression.

@codesections @lawremipsum I note that you haven't taken a position on whether the specific opinions expressed by Kev in the snowflake thread are oppressive or not.

You have to make a decision on this. If you don't, your silence speaks for you.

@lawremipsum thank you for reaching out to them to have this conversation.
I've already lost my energy when it comes to it. 🤗

Again thank you 💞

@lawremipsum Thanks for this! I tried reaching out to kev but he's kinda inundated right now. Wanted to get the actual scoop before taking action on this one.

@mcmoots I'm told that the Fosstodon moderation team will discuss enforcement of their CoC vis a vis the kev toot in more detail now that I have raised the issue, so they may come out with a clearer position one way or the other in the near future—but this is where things are at right now...

Sign in to participate in the conversation

Hometown is adapted from Mastodon, a decentralized social network with no ads, no corporate surveillance, and ethical design.