Of course if you don't like the moderation then move or start your own instance.

cc: @aral

Most complaints are “I don't like what you say”, and the people who don't like what someone else says often try to create heated exchange first and then file complaint on the heat they caused themselves. Therefore, if you get a complaint, look at the exchange before, and if it's such a case, hide the messages that created the heat.

That is the correct option.

Hide the message.
If possible even from migration to another instance.

I still think moderators should have the nuclear option of deleting a post.

I have, occasionally, had to report transphobic abuse from throwaway accounts in the hope that a moderator will delete it before the intended target sees it. A "message hidden" notification would give the target a pretty strong indication that she'd been abused. I'd prefer it if she didn't even know.

(Yes, she: in my limited experience, it's always been women who were on the receiving end of this garbage.)

@staff @haubles

Given the federated nature of this network, I'm rather relaxed about free speech/censoring issues.

I thought maybe this already existed though it sounds like it's been up for discussion for awhile:
https://github.com/mastodon/mastodon/issues/1307

Deletion of the content but not the existence of the post. If I go to your profile it should be representative of your posts. A version of your profile sans the posts my instance chooses to moderate just misrepresents you and the conversations you're in.

There’s a need for moderators to have access to the nuclear option, but there also need to be a range of less drastic responses available, to allow building workable policies around that choice.

But they must have access to a “delete the post (other than forensic retention) and salt the earth” option.

If mastodon.social blocks my instance of one, they prevent ~750,000 people from following me and seeing my posts.

If I block mastodon.social, I prevent ~750,000 people from following me and seeing my posts.

If someone is forced into an specific instance and (...)

I agree 100% with you for the need of a 'post under moderation' flag. That would make mod's work so much easier, also because it removes a lot of pressure to come up with a firm decision taken consensually by a team of volunteers dispersed over all timezones.

Nevertheless, I am still i favour of mods being able to delete posts (there's a lot of heinous shit we don't see because somebody made an early report and the mods could act swiftly on obviously horrible things®).

I mean, moderation errors sometimes happen and post deletions can be already reversed.

On the other side, although I am more on the 'if you don't like your mods decisions, move to another instance'-argument side, the moving costs are too high (you'll loose your posts and sometimes followers) and in practice, at the moment of setting up an account it is not possible to know how moderation rules are enforced on a specific instance.

EDIT: that said, it is of course preferrable when mods contact users with 'hey, for reasons XY we suggest that you delete the post'. But again, this works only for the 'homo fediresponsiblus' kind of person and then there's also the mod-workload thing.

#Fedimoderation #Moderation