this post was submitted on 27 Jun 2023
342 points (100.0% liked)
/kbin meta
200 readers
2 users here now
Magazine dedicated to discussions about the kbin itself. Provide feedback, ask questions, suggest improvements, and engage in conversations related to the platform organization, policies, features, and community dynamics. ---- * Roadmap 2023 * m/kbinDevlog * m/kbinDesign
founded 2 years ago
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I just need a little more time. There will likely be a technical break announced tomorrow or the day after tomorrow. Along with the migration to new servers, we will be introducing new moderation tools that I am currently working on and testing (I had it planned for a bit later in my roadmap). Then, I will address your reports and handle them very seriously. I try my best to delete sensitive content, but with the current workload and ongoing relocation, it takes a lot of time. I am being extra cautious now. The regulations are quite general, and I would like to refine them together with you and do everything properly. For now, please make use of the option to block the magazine/author.
I joined kbin recently and I'm kind of concerned about the implications of this. I don't support those posts at all, but who gets to say what's worth banning and what not? Wouldn't that go against the decentralized nature of the site? Or is it the specific instance that magazine is on that has the authority to ban what's inside? How does all of this work?
Edit: my bad, I got kbin and kbin.social mixed up. Noob mistake.
"who gets to say what's worth banning and what not?"
Just like with privately hosted services like Twitter and Reddit, it's the person/group hosting the content. The decentralized nature means that if you disagree, you can voice that, or host your own instance, or move elsewhere that aligns with your viewpoints. Some people have multiple accounts spread out across instances to see different kinds of content.
Rambling below, you can stop reading here if you want.
Being federated doesn't mean moderation can be ignored on either end. Some groups may not want to deal with certain content that others want to (could be for personal or legal reasons), and that's OK. Since individual posts can't be moderated across instances, if there are big patterns of moderation disagreements, then defederation is the only option and that's usually not fun for anyone, so it's generally in everyone's best interest to stay generally acceptable to everyone else.
Of course, nothing is forcing that. There are currently instances defederated from my home instance Beehaw, for example. I'd imagine they're still doing just fine without that federation, too. It can be argued that it's against the spirit of federation, but at the same time you really can't expect people to want to host data on their server that may not be morally or legally acceptable to them.
(This is all ignoring purpose-driven instances. People can choose to make an instance where only a specific kind of content is available, too. It's much easier to manage that kind of instance due to the smaller scale, but as with anything there are downsides to that, too.)