Simple Social Network

dansup

1y ·
Public

·
mastodon.social

#fedidb

https://fedidb.org is no longer including pawoo due to reports of CP.

I should clarify inclusion rules add a "News" section for situations like this, and update the stats logic to recalculate stats without the removed instances.

I feel like a resource like this should include instances regardless of reputation except in situations where they break the law.

Wdyt? How should we handle this, and what other inclusion rules would you like to see?

Boosts greatly appreciated! #fediDB

PhilipKing

@dansup I agree. The only slight wrinkle is that what breaks the law varies around the world.
I don’t know at what point you would ‘draw the line’ without having different rules for different jurisdictions? A very difficult question but needs addressing. A good example of how it can all go horribly wrong is Odysee.

maegul

@dansup isn’t baraag also problematic?

ɟloʍ

@dansup nobody is forced to use Mastodon. Fedi ≠ Masto.

matdevdug

@dansup Instances should default to not counting towards stats until they’ve demonstrated that they’re not full of spam/CP/junk. If the point of the stats is to demonstrate some sense of progress then any spam server, harassment server or illegal content server shouldn’t count.

Darnell Clayton :verified:

@dansup I know Pawoo does remove CP posts as compelled by law (they are hosted in #Japan 🇯🇵), but their moderation team might be overwhelmed right now.

I talked to their current owner @Sujiyan last year over Zoom: https://darnell.day/zooming-with-pawoo-net-new-owner-suji-yan

I know https://Fediverse.Observer & https://Instances.Social still list Pawoo on their stat sites.

What is needed for large & hyperactive instances is an automated tool that automatically takes CP posts down (I know https://Counter.Social has this tech).

Suji Yan

@dansup I do agree that an info site should not remove or alter list of info due to content.

katzenberger

@dansup "unless breaking the law" is not a good idea, since there is no unique "law" but a whole zoo of jurisdictions, including laws made by dictators and authoritarian regimes that I would not want to see in control of what I get to see.

I suggest that rules for exclusions be published, so you know what to expect from a curated site. Also, document under which jurisdiction *you* are under.

Apart from that, the person maintaining the site gets to decide. If you disagree, set up your own site.

Erlend

This content was marked as sensitive. Click to reveal

@dansup p.s. rather than CP, the recommended terminology is CSAM: child sexual abuse materials.

https://rainn.org/news/what-child-sexual-abuse-material-csam

“While the term child pornography is still widely used by the public, it’s more accurate to call it what it is: evidence of child sexual abuse.

While some of the pornography online depicts adults who have consented to be filmed, that’s never the case when the images depict children.”

Jaz-Michael King

@dansup Raw data is one thing, but fedidb is a curated resource, it inherently takes on curation responsibilities.

This is a public-facing directory, it therefore has a duty of care to the public.

The inclusion of sites like baraag on a public directory should be considered against some inclusion/exclusion criteria.

One method would be to publish the criteria-based resource publicly, and offer the raw version to those who need more complete data (or at least behind a "click to see all" link)