Give control to the USERS. It's is not up to the fediverse or app developers or even to the admins to decide what they should or should not see. Do you even realize what you're doing?
I like that mastodon has block/whatever controls, it's great! But LET ME CHOOSE who to block. I have tried a few instances that arbitrarily block others, and it's frustrating not seeing comments from folks on other instances that aren't aware I can't see and therefore reply. Through no fault of either myself nor them.
Stop treating users like fragile imbeciles.
There are capable adults here, that you know, exist in the real world and do just fine. We'll be fine here.
There's no reason for anybody to pre-emptively ban an instance. The only exceptions (instance posts CP/other strict liability content) also happen to be the only appropriate use cases for instance wide blocking.
People should block instances when they find a reason to do so. If someone needs an instance that attempts to shield them from all negativity, I'm sure there are a few, but thats niche
I wasn’t hiding anything, I meant what I said. Some people don’t want anything with a negative tone, period, about anything, and I don’t think those people should be on the Internet. It’s not good for them.
You, on the other hand, made the jump you accused me of. Oops.
For example, I have blocked gab, even though my instance allows it. It’s quite simple to do, and there is an analogue on twitter (blocklists).
Once you allow someone to decide for you want is the boogie man du jour be it commie in the cold war or nazi today, you put yourself in a disadvantaged position.
@fluffy @angristan @rotawerx
The big solution is to have the list of instance bans be visible, preferably to the public (before account sign-up). In my perfect world, there’d be a matching JSON-LD schema so you can poll instances for their instance bans. Same with silences.
I’d also like to see *counts* (not lists, obvious reason) of user silences/blocks per instance.
The whole point is, Joe Blow compares instances, that’s something to compare.
Standard use case: “I mostly talk to people on instance x, y, and z. Let me make sure that won’t be a problem here before I make a new account.”
This is the same reason we should prefer silences to blocks, where feasible.
The advantage in fediverse is that people can choose what instance fits them. Users who want to be treated like fragile imbeciles will migrate to instances that make the decisions for them, such as Twitter and Facebook. And users who want to make decisions for themselves will stay with @angristan for example.
Pressuring someone else to follow your own arbitrary moral code is not ok in any way @dansup "Who's not with us is against us" is always bad.
@angristan so, the real issue here is that Mastodon's author chose the open source license which permits forks and now his own poor and short-sighted decision haunts him
@rune my argument was not about the license itself. Eugene had published Mastodon under the license that does not prohibit forking, then called "some asshole in a desert" (using your analogy) a parasite for forking his software. Also he stated that "App devs and server admins will block their domains" as if Mastodon was a centralized software and he has authority over those devs and admins.
@testodon Heh, fair point.
On my first read I definitely misconstrued "poor and short-sighted decision" to be your assessment when it really is more an observation of what Eugen must have felt.
There's a lot of disagreement going on in the fediverse it seems. Some people believing in unconditional free use of software as the license decrees and others less so.
@angristan I can only agree with that. For this very reason I have recently started to run my own instance.
@angristan are they, though? Thats the whole point of open source. Saying people are 'stealing' is doing it wrong.
@SteveTheDragon i didn't use this word
@angristan ok, but i think your opinion of 'shitty' couldnt be more wrong.
@SteveTheDragon and I actually don't care
@angristan that is more than expected.
@angristan Look, buddy. This isn't a small problem like drawn child pornography. This is GAB. They're NATZIS
@angristan en ce moment les gens voudraient que les autres changent leur manière de faire pour leur gueule et qu'ils restent passifs...Chacun gère ses complexes merde
@angristan I do agree with you, but if not up to admins at all then whats the point of having disributed instances in your mind?
- to spread the costs of hosting
- to make the network more resistant to misbehaving admins
- to avoid a single point of failure
- to let you chose where your data is stored
- to let you play around with modified versions of the server software while still being part of the same network
...and probably more.
Well things like being able to migrate freely between servers and take ytour followers and toots with you.The act of becoming federated and relays, te very need to even know a persons home server, all tese things could be addressed if we no longer cared about admins running things manually and choosing who to include
Now that I think of it, it is fine if _some_ servers do heavy instance-wide blocking. Even though I don't agree with that, I can tolerate them, and won't call their admins "bad person" as long as they can tolerate existence of neutral-carrier-like instances, and don't call those instances' admins "bad person".
But there are still be plenty of other reasons to have multiple servers and to pick one over another. They may be not so prominent in the current climate, but they're there and still having effect, even if we don't notice it.