Request For Comments

[kescherCode]

The covenant isn't finalized. If you have criticism to add, please add it as a comment to this issue.

[fogti]

widespread information on specific instances

is a bit unclear, does this mean information originating on specific instances (SI) (e.g. rumors and bad faith devolvements), or information about SI (e.g. that these are maybe present on a larger set of instance block lists), or information widely accepted on SI (e.g. conspiracy theories)?

[HimbeersaftLP]

In point 2.2, there is this phrase that seems very unremarkable:

If another instance [...] has rules incompatible (or: not remediable by marking all incoming media as sensitive) with our instance [...] a full instance suspension will be done.

But despite having the appearance of sidenote, it overwrites the entire covenant.

[HimbeersaftLP]

Some Guilt-by-Association

I couldn't come up with a better red flag for toxicity if I tried

[kescherCode]

@zseri this phrasing is in the original covenant, and I interpret it as "information about instances specific instances". Therefore, I should probably make this precise adjustment.

[kescherCode]

@HimbeersaftLP regarding point 2.2: Fixed in 35e118759d0bef63f3132e0bfa9e5e2399a5a8bc. That part isn't even needed, as it should it is entirely "moderation discretion" and would likely fall under several other sections (spec compliance, legality, harmfulness to local users)

regarding "Some Guilt-by-Association": Yeah that's not the best phrasing I chose there. I have reworked the entire section IN https://github.com/kescherCode/user-friendly-moderation-covenant/commit/1f9516ccafd5d55f0f321898871f49481d0edf50 to hopefully make more clear:

• the order in which things would escalate
• the difference between mere federation and active association

[turtlegarden]

In the guilt-by-federation section I would add a mention of secure mode and why it needs to be on.

[kescherCode]

@foreverxml That's likely very complicated to add into the covenant itself. I do agree that everyone should have it on, but sadly, the biggest two instances of Mastodon do not have it enabled, and cutting these instances off would definitely be harmful to a lot of folks' experience. That being said, it is usually sufficient if instance admins that do not want things being leaked to have secure mode, so perhaps mentioning secure mode in the README could do?

[turtlegarden]

@kescherCode I think that would be very good, as it doesn't directly impact moderation other than moderation can be more relaxed because you don't have to deal with reply propagation