Right, fediverse, let me know what you think.

[greenwhale@dice.camp]

@zleap

What happens when that person is offline? For a day? For three days? When would that ban come into effect?

@aral

[annehargreaves@ioc.exchange]

@aral Ask, then if not complied with, ban or restrict.

[rustynail@floss.social]

@aral iirc there is also an option (which already works) where a moderator can put a spoiler/warning on a post

[iwein@mas.to]

@aral

1. software should streamline reality, but not present it in a misleading way. One that controls the url can do whatever, so it's best to not pretend otherwise.

2. In my opinion asking first should be the default, but not the only option.

A moderator can slander someone by modifying their online representation without consent. But a moderator is also legally and ethically responsible for what they host.

We should pick your moderators with care so that we are moderated with care.

[layan2002@mastodon.social]

@aral Some lengthy passages are tedious, but some are both enjoyable and informative, like Nadia's story.❤️‍🩹🕊️

[yetiinabox@todon.nl]

@aral
1) It should be possible for a moderator to _censor_ a post - to ensure, absolutely, that it cannot circulate and will never be read, not even by the person who wrote it. If deletion is the only way to achieve that, then so be it, but ActivityPub is weird that way and I don't think there's a way to actually erase a post across the whole Fedi.
2) If it's in the rules for a particular server that the moderator (or, indeed, a bad-word-tracking filter) can and will delete posts, then that's the rules for that instance.
3) Obviously there should be efforts to _moderate_ before censoring: queries, blocks, suspensions, kicks - so having to censor should be a desperate last response to an unintentionally horrible post, a takeover, etc. But it needs to be in the toolbox.
4) By that same logic, there may well be posts which should be censored but not deleted, so that the community and the moderators can learn about them.

[layan2002@mastodon.social]

@aral But since the importance of the content cannot be determined, I think it's best to leave it to the reader to decide whether to read it or ignore it, so that important content isn't lost due to something else unimportant✨

[aral@mastodon.ar.al]

Actually, here’s what I really think is lacking: a hide post moderation option in Mastodon.

Instead of deleting posts, moderators should be able to hide posts.

Posts that are hidden by moderators should keep their place in the timeline but state publicly that they were hidden by moderators.

(Servers other than the originating server must treat hidden posts as otherwise deleted and remove their local cache of the content. This is no different to the existing social contact for federated deletes.)

The server should also clearly communicate to the person in question (this can be automated) that their post has been hidden and that they can challenge the decision via regular channels by filing an appeal. (And, if they don’t like the moderation, they can move to a different server, etc., as per usual.)

That would feel much better to me than deleting a post outright and it can be combined with a moderation policy that promises not to delete or edit other people’s posts.

It would also allow for an appeal process and the possible reinstatement of a post should it be found that a moderation error has occurred.

CC @staff @haubles

#mastodon #moderation #fediverse #postDeletion #postHiding #authorship #censorship #ownership

[aral@mastodon.ar.al]

@rooftopjaxx Hah, see my latest post. Yes: I think this is the way.

[hosebei@infosec.exchange]

@aral we only talk about legal stuff, right? RIGHT?
not just shit people feel offended by it?

[aral@mastodon.ar.al]

@hosebei Well, if you’re on someone else’s server, it’s entirely up to them where they draw the line.

So it could be anything.

Zionist instances, for example moderate differently to instances that oppose settler colonialism, apartheid, ethnic cleansing, and genocide.

[rooftopjaxx@kolektiva.social]

@aral it also offers that advantage that while you're not actually censoring, your instance is also not actually publishing some offensive shit.

[gareth@tenforward.social]

@aral @staff @haubles
That seems more reasonable. You can’t expect shitty people to voluntarily remove illegal or distressing posts, but this would allow you to protect the rest of your users and preserve evidence for the authorities (I’m thinking doxxing/credible threats and CSAM type stuff, not just “I don’t like what you said” complaints)

[hosebei@infosec.exchange]

@aral so, you think it's depending on the instance, what's stays online and what not?
Which is totally fair, nobody requires anyone to join or check such a instance.
I really think, the options we do have are sufficient, the instance owner decides, on how to act on malicious members.
If the member is not happy that its posts are getting deleted, he/her might move or operate its own instance, which is totally accepted by anyone.

[aral@mastodon.ar.al]

@rooftopjaxx Well, it is still censorship but that’s part and parcel of moderation (offensive to whom is the key question in these situations. Offensive to fascists and white supremacists? Moderators on a far-right instance will be moderating differently to those on a progressive one, etc.)

[brad@1040ste.net]

@aral @staff @haubles Could a third-third (fourth?) way be to mandate a CW rather than hiding it outright, while considering whether to suspend the account?

Deleting posts lets people off the hook too easily, while hiding them provokes more suspicion of moderators than a form of CW would.

Horses for courses, naturally. I only have to worry about one user, and I mostly follow my rules 😂 I'm all for better tools being available for the mods on larger instances though, it affects all of us.

[morix@loci.onl]

@aral @staff @haubles the ability to replace the served version of a post with a "hidden by moderation" message would likely work, that way there's functionally a placeholder for if it is later unhidden and it can just remanifest back in like an edit almost.

[catsalad@infosec.exchange]

@aral I, a non-moderator, want the power to delete OTHER people's posts.

I am a good kitty and can be trusted with this power

[benjamin@piaille.fr]

@brad @aral @staff @haubles mastodon interface allows moderators to mark a post a sensitive. But not to add any text from the moderators to it.
I'd like to have that (eg. to state which rule has been breached)

[sortius@infosec.exchange]

@catsalad @aral all good kitties are corrupted with said power