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?

And by the way I'm NOT supporting Gab. Sure, I may block them instance-wide if something really bad happens like mass spam or harassement, but until then it is *not* my call. Each user can mute entire instances for themselves and by themselves.

Aso yes, Gab is doing really shitty stuff by taking Mastodon's code and using/breaking it even though they have VC funding... But Mastodon is open-source so this will happen again... Remember Hiveway?

@angristan YES!

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.


Theres a place for people who barely know how to use a smartphone. A place for people who need to be coddled and spoon-fed their tech. Where such people are outright necessary to keep user counts up.

And it's called Twitter. Twitter is trash.

@r000t @angristan @rotawerx
Perhaps there is a way to have a "pinned issues" or "community topics" tab, where there is a set of suggestions for why you might want to ban certain instances.

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
@angristan @rotawerx

@fluffy @angristan @rotawerx
More to the point, if someone needs to be pre-emptively shielded from all negativity, they may wish to put the computer away.

Nick Jr., Noggin, and Sprout are still broadcasting for their convenience.

@r000t @fluffy @angristan @rotawerx

"More to the point, if someone needs to be pre-emptively shielded from all negativity, they may wish to put the computer away."


Is that what you call Fascism and Nazism?

Why the euphemism?

Are you hiding what you are really saying, even from yourself?

@hhardy01 @rotawerx
It is my opinion as well as the opinion of a great number of others that the hysteria surrounding what is purported to be fascism and nazism is tedious and annoying.

One should assume that other members of the community are arguing in good faith. Athough I don't myself agree with their perspectives, I find those who are called nazis and fascist to be very far from the raving lunatics they are alleged to be.

Remember that in the end we are all people, and that hate gets us nowhere.

@hhardy01 @fluffy @angristan @rotawerx

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.

@hhardy01 @rotawerx The user should be the one who decides which information he is granted.

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.

@[email protected]@[email protected]

There is no moral equivalence between Fascism and anti-Fascism. None.

People of every color marching side by side
Marching across these fields where a million fascists died
You're bound to lose
You fascists are bound to lose 4x
You're bound to lose, you fascists
Are bound to lose
I'm going into this battle, take my union gun
Gonna end this world of slavery before this war is won
You're bound to lose
You fascists are bound to lose

Woody Guthrie
All You Fascists Bound To Lose


@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.

@fluffy @angristan @rotawerx
And to be clear, it should be a bullet point list of domains. No “reason” or a place for some manifesto about why a given instance is such a bad place. Just a list.

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.

Exactly this.

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 Surprise, hardcore Mastodonians don't want openness and decentralization, but conformity and control!

@angristan I can only agree with that. For this very reason I have recently started to run my own instance.

>Can you please block the instance that only federates with hacks?
How about they stop panicking over absolutely nothing. All I could get from Gab are two users. Other than that, federation seems to be broken on purpose.

Seems like federation is working fine now
Both milo yiannopoulous and alex jones seem to federate fine, which are the only users I know on gab due to their notorious twitter bans

@intuxikated @angristan
I know a few more, but they are not appearing. I only got the one I wantend right after the migration, because some fucked with Gab on the inside.

@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?

@freemo @angristan a server isn't just a glorified blocklist, although indeed you can choose yours depending on what it blocks

@espectalll @freemo right, an instance is way more than just a blacklist. Although if it is this is that important for you, there are plenty of choices


Have you blocked any instances?

But just not gab?

Or have you not blocked any instances globally at all?

@espectalll @freemo

@angristan Because muh ideology. When you run on pure rhetoric, nothing else matters, even if your run into contradictions, such as this for example.

@angristan Admins should be partly responsible for content shared and shown on their instance/platform.

It's ok to promote freedom of speech but one should also have the guts to stand up for those believes and face whatever consequences it might bring forth like the infamous Gab and 4chan instead of hiding behind the "it's just a platform" excuse like facebook, twitter or reddit.

@Vipsu @angristan It has long been known that admins in the fediverse do have legal liability for the content they host, and the consequences of that can vary depending upon jurisdictions. For example, hosting hate speech or certain kinds of political imagery in EU countries may be against local laws. We havn't seen any legal cases yet, but that's presumably because the fediverse isn't on the radar of the politicians because it hasn't been big enough. That situation may change in the next few years.

@skarabrae @angristan Fediverse isn't but social media is. Facebook, Twitter and sites like Reddit are no different and should also be held responsible for the content their users distribute.

But even today they conveniently hide behind "just a platform" excuse and switch to "publisher" when convenient for them in the court rooms.

@angristan actually it IS up to the users and admins to decide what they should and should not see.

That's why there are multiple feds, all with different rules that you AGREED to when you became part of that fed.

To join one and complain about the rules you sought out and agreed to is very naive and baseless.

I would go as far as to just say outright stupid but I'm trying to be civil.

@Wetrix yes it is up to both. But some decide to let the users choose, because they consider them smart enough to make their own choices

@angristan no, they do not. Every fed has rules when you join.

So when those rules are enforced that's a baseless stance.

@Wetrix I don't understand what you're saying sorry


- "911 what's your emergency?"
- "Help! My house is on fire and it's spreading to the neighbouring houses aswell!"
- "It's a fire, you can extinguish it yourself. [slams phone down]"

Except there is no fire yet.
@angristan clearly stated "I may block them instance-wide if something really bad happens like mass spam or harassement", but until then, there is no reason to block them instance-wide.

@RLetot @angristan

ah yes, because we need more proof that white supremacists are problematic, is that really the argument that you're making?

No, I'm just saying that your analogy is flawed.

While I'm at it, please don't get me wrong: I have no sympathy for white supremacists, neo nazis, and all their clique. But like all terrorists they do not deserve special treatment, otherwise they already have won.

@angristan @Supes
This is why I want to see Mastodon support shared blocklists and admins use that. Instance blocks should be transparent to users. Also many instance blocks could be avoided if users could subscribe to "no porn" or "no right wing" blocklists.

@bender @angristan maybe the better way to do it is allowing users to "filter" what they want to see rather than "blocking" for everyone on an instance. Anyway the hysteria is pathetic and the leftists need to get a grip. Imagine their tears if it was them being blocked!

@Supes @angristan I disagree with instance level blocks and think they should be opt-in (or at minimum opt-out). but transparency let potential users look at the blocklist before joining an instance and say "no they're too controlling".

@angristan good shit. thanks for being a sane admin. You're giving me hope.
Sign in to participate in the conversation

The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!