Todamont

I'm accusing them of aiding and abetting the distribution of CP because that's EXACTLY WHAT THEY ARE DOING, that's why they have a network with tons of CP on it RIGHT NOW.

> hey you know what you should do with this CP platform? FORK IT!!!

LOL, no. I have no interest in working on the D* project, ever again, my focus has now turned towards working with law enforcement to hold them accountable for aiding and abetting distribution of CP.

If the Diaspora Foundation wants to insult and ban podmins who complain about CP, then it's only logical that the response of those podmins should be to start criminal CP complaints against them.

> So I think it's great to have these kind of blocklists available to pods / servers / whatever instances, but I would like to see it as opt in, and selectivley able to opt out of whichever ones for any reason by the server / instance operator, and I think it should be optional for the users to opt out of whichever blocklists as well.

Yes, I agree with this. The end effect of this will be self-partitioning of the network, however, I think.

There are actually some pods who do a great job of tracking down bad users, and they have a full staff, and I trust their podmins. I should be able to offload a lot of the work of gatekeeping a TOS standard, to them, if I desire.

I totally agree it should be optional too. I clearly stated that in my posts to the D* github issues. But they just banned me, said trying to take action to moderate CP off the network was censorship, and they were going to ban me for it, ironically. That's when I started suspecting the D* core devs may actually be protecting their CP network, or even possibly profitting from the CP on their network.

Actually, being a D* podmin for 7 years gave me a lot of time to reflect on fair moderation. Good moderation means letting people say things that you disagree with, essentially, as long as it is legal content. However, as the owner of a webserver, I do have the prerogative to lay down the rules of what can be served there, and so a part of good moderation is setting up a fair and rational TOS that is publicly posted, and applying those rules fairly to all accounts, equally.

For example, a rational TOS would not have people banned for complaining about CP on the network. A rational TOS would not ban people for "too many comments" on a github issue ticket without defining what the time limits for posting are. Spam is unsolicited commercial advertisment posts, so those are a clearly-defined special category.

I think meta-moderation, where people are randomly assigned to review each other's mod actions for sensibility, and some consensus/reputation score could be utilized to arbitrate that. I also think random rotation of moderatorship to people with good recent reputation/kharma over a 6 or 12 month period could be utilised, to great effect, to prevent "tyrant" mods.

In a federated network such as Diaspora, I think you need some tools for federation of the moderatorship actions, such as the ability to share blocklists among pods, with standardized TOS terms that several pods could subscribe to. That's what I suggested in their github issues system, right before they banned me.

Why do you think it's crazy for me to file criminal reports about CP that I saw on the Diaspora Network? Should I just ignore that kind of thing, you think? I just submitted a tip to the FBI.

If you think people should be banned from discussions because of their "attitudes" regarding moderation, you don't understand the difference between moderation and censorship, and you are advocating censorship.

> I would ban you for such an attitude.

Well, then you are a would-be censor, and it's a good thing you can't ban everyone everywhere, or else the whole world would fall silent and the only sound would be of your waxing nonsense. All those "spammers" with their "spam" complaints about CP, amirite?

If you think people should be banned from discussions because they won't stop complaining about all the CP on the network and how they can't legally run a pod anymore, well that's the attitude I'd expect from a CP network admin.

My claims are not false. You are defending a child sex trafficking network, imho.

No, I think you would have to be like added to their github group to be considered a "member" of the D* foundation. It used to be a private company but then it turned into a non-profit thing with volunteer coders. From what I can tell there are maybe 5 or 6 active devs, and they have NO PROBLEM WHATSOEVER with the amount of CP on their network, and NO PROBLEM WHATSOEVER blatantly censoring anyone who suggests a plan of action to stop the CP from being posted to their network. It seems to me that they may be PROTECTING their CP network from public view and legal scrutiny.

If we're seeing CP on the network, there is MOST CERTAINLY a problem with the moderation. It's literally INSANE to me that you don't get that.

Hey buddy, I'm seeing a ton of CP on the D* network. Maybe that's cool with you, but to me, it means that the D* network is a place for disseminating CP and potentially a place where child sex trafficking is occuring. Thats not sensationalism. If you think people should be banned for comments about moderation, I would suggest you don't understand the difference between fair moderation and censorship. Or maybe you just think CP is cool huh? Are you one of the D* core devs, is that why you are defending this network where child sex abuse pictures are being posted every day?

IMHO people who scream CENSORSHIP when you start talking about removing CP and going after child predators, are usually child predators.

"Spamming" issue tickets? You mean leaving comments? "Spam" is an unsolicited advertisement for a product or service, I DEFINITELY did not do that, so I think you should be more precise with your language. They don't have a Terms of Service that says you are not allowed to make comments on issue tickets, so I did not violate any terms of service. IMHO "spamming" is the excuse that all censors use, when they censor you.

Thanks, I have filed a complaint with them now. I've also notified the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. I basically filed a complaint naming the D* core devs as potentially involved in child sex trafficking. That's very disturbing to me.

I see it as a problem of moderation, which is notoriously tricky to do fairly, for any individual, and when you get a roomfull of techno-libertarians together it becomes insurmountable to reach consensus on the process. My takeaway is that federated networks need a federated moderation system, and they will become segmented when the "good" actors essentially ban / disconnect from the "bad" actors or just the uninitiated. So moderation systems maybe need to be centralized to some degree to be effective. I've reached out to the CEO of YCombinator, and the Youth Pastor of YCombinator about this, I'm looking forward to hearing their responses. I've also reached out to the Software Freedom Law Center, the group that oversees the Free Software Support Network of which the Diaspora Foundation is a part of, and I'll be urging them to take action against Diaspora Foundation also. I have just completed a tip to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, letting them know about Diaspora's little CP problem. My buddy from the Wall Street Journal seems interested now too :)