https://Fedi.Garden doesn't just list Mastodon servers, it also lists servers from other kinds of Fediverse platforms.
If you run a Fediverse server and it is compatible with the requirements (https://fedi.garden/about-this-site/), please message me if you would like to be listed.
At the moment people sign up via the list on JoinMastodon so they tend to only see Mastodon servers. I'm trying to create a platform-neutral alternative while still having some curation and listing requirements.
@FediGarden
> If you run a Fediverse server and it is compatible with the requirements ... please message me if you would like to be listed
I'm pretty sure mastodon.nzoss.nz matches all of those requirements except blocking Chains. You're reasoning for this requirement seems to presume blocking has some negative impact on Meta. It almost certainly doesn't.
What it does, is discriminate against anyone who has an account there, perhaps because they haven't yet learned about good replacements.
(1/?)
@FediGarden
> it just isn't right to be federating with such a company
We're not federating with the *company*, we're federating with the people using it. With the hopes of convincing them to move off it, because they can do so without losing all their contacts there.
In other words, we're federating with Chains as a way of fighting Meta. Blocking Chains might feel righteous, but it's not a good strategy for fighting them IMHO.
If a server does something awful, and the owners refuse to do anything about it, it is the server's owners that are responsible. That's a cornerstone of the Fediverse.
If being blamed by genocide survivors doesn't get Meta defederated, nothing will. Continuing to federate in these circumstances is giving Meta a free pass to do anything they want.
It's not about "feeling righteous", it's about doing the right thing.
(1/2)
@FediGarden
> If a server does something awful, and the owners refuse to do anything about it, it is the server's owners that are responsible
I agree but I'm not sure how it's relevant. Chains was not the server that resulted in the terrible consequences you're rightly concerned about. It's just owned by the same company.
Can you explain to me the precise mechanism by which federating with Chains makes us more vulnerable to genocide, or to being complicit in it?
The mechanism is this:
1. Meta doesn't moderate hateful propaganda on its platforms (GLAAD actually tested this, including on Threads: https://glaad.org/releases/new-glaad-report-unsafe-meta-fails-to-moderate-extreme-anti-trans-hate-across-facebook-instagram-and-threads/)
2. Hateful propaganda and lies about vulnerable minorities spreads, people outside those minorities get radicalised into hating them etc.
3. Vulnerable minorities end up victims of real life discrimination, threats, violence and (in some cases) murders.
The survivors actually say this themselves, that's why they blame Meta.
The question I asked (emphasis added) was;
> Can you explain to me the precise mechanism by which *federating* with Chains makes us more vulnerable to genocide, or to being complicit in it?
What you've explained is the mechanism by which Meta's poor moderation led to genocide, which I'm well aware of. Having established that as shared context, can you answer the question I asked?
It means that people on your server will be exposed to the kind of hateful propaganda and more likely to be radicalised.
This can sound far fetched, but it is what happens and people on the sharp end can attest to it.
@FediGarden that's not a mechanism. It's a dogma. But clearly one you're very committed to, so
If you federate with hate, you help the hate to spread.
It's the mechanism that survivors of genocide have told us about:
"Gebremichael was not political, his relative said. He was not educated, and did not engage with the hatred and misinformation that swamps Ethiopian social media. Yet his relative claimed online hate campaigns and calls for violence – particularly on Facebook – played a key role in not only his killing, but many others. "