The Mastodon social network information thread

[Lysander]

Is there anyway to make posts public or is that the point?

When you post, everyone can see it as long as they're signed in [world icon next to your post]. If you enter into a discussion with someone thereafter, only that person can see it [padlock icon].

 

[Lysander]

Even if we put the ideological leanings of the moderation direction (or not, depending on your viewpoint of course) to one side, Twitter already allowed people to be extremely hateful to each other,

It did indeed. Because its chief cause was to make money and explain the fights away as human nature rather than try better to control them. It didn't care if the fights got worse or if people's mental health deteriorated, or people killed themselves from being on Twitter because, well, that's humans doing human things, right??

Free software, the cause behind it, has always been "do one thing and do it well" and, in this case, Mastodon was always about creating a safe, cohesive community.

 

[Lysander]

9 times out of 10 when I see people banging on about toxicity they aren't talking about real toxicity, which there isn't a shortage of on the internet either. More often it is people who can't deal with their reality being questioned.

How can you quantify that statement? It's impossible without some kind of evidence [which will be subjective anyway]. It's an extremely damaging thing to say. There are people who are reading this, who will take that in and think, "oh, so I am not on the end of toxic behaviour, maybe it's my fault?" and will begin questioning themselves. That's an awful train of thought to have to deal with.

"Some of", fine, OK, understandable. But 90%? I would urge you to reconsider that figure. I have been on the receiving end of toxic behaviour, and one of the worst things you can do is start believing [as these people make you do] that it's actually your problem.

I am sorry, I am going slightly off topic, but I couldn't let that comment go. I think it's a very irresponsible thing to write on a public forum and it's important that it's addressed.

 

[Lysander]

I see it a lot on Twitter for instance where you can compare the complaints about toxic behaviour to the actual threads of conversation and interactions in the past which they are alluding to as toxic behaviours. (A typical one being software developers).

I will absolutely stand by that figure of about 90% - there are people who are subject to abuse and comments like hope they die of cancer and so on but far far more often it is thin skinned or people existing in a bubble who can not distinguish, or don't want to distinguish, between criticism/opinions and people actually being hateful.

I think it is equally very harmful to allow differences of opinion and so on to be silenced by branding them as toxicity.

EDIT: One thing I will say there is that might be more relevant to the environments I experience than necessarily a representation of the whole - but, unfortunately, I stand by what I say that far far more often than not people are using "toxicity" as a weapon rather than actually being on the receiving end of real toxicity.

I am not going to derail the thread and I imagined you would stand by the figure, which is disappointing, since, as is often the way on Twitter, it is normally the vocal minority who make it seem that a certain situation is the majoritative case. As I also said, it is impossible to quantify the figure. Difference of opinion should not be branded as toxicity, I agree, but I think the statement is a damaging one since no-one should question themselves when on the receiving end of real toxic behaviour.

It's the people who have misused the term who have invalidated its genuine meaning, and that shouldn't be allowed to happen by letting their cases disproportionately overshadow others.