4 ms·

The author also points out there were people on other instances who would be posting things that I could get into trouble for since my server holds a cache o

by rexpop 10y ago

The author also points out there were people on other instances who would be posting things that I could get into trouble for since my server holds a cache of the other servers. And so his own moderation would be insufficient, in his eyes, to disculpate him.

onion2k 10y ago
Federating content on the public internet is a hard problem. That doesn't mean it's unsolvable though. Currently the only working the solution so far is massive human effort - that just puts managing a Mastodon instance outside of the possibility of doing it on your own. If you want to run a server you really need to recruit people to help. Mastodon makes it very easy to block users on other servers, and entire servers, so it's really a matter of further moderation rather than being actually impossible. There's also an effort by Mastodon admin to share a list of the potentially dangerous servers so admin can block them if they wish to.
- djsumdog 10y ago
  So does Mastodon cache everything, even people you don't visit/follow? ZeroNet only serves sites you actively visit, correct? I have been meaning to setup a Mastodon server, but haven't gotten around to it yet. Can't you just chose to help cache/serve content for only people you trust/follow?
  - detaro 10y ago
    Who is "you" in your question? It serves any content a user on your instance follows (unless explicitly blocked).
- arxpoetica 10y ago
  My thoughts on this kind of federated gate keeping is that it should always be opt in. Explicit gate keeping in other words. In general though, this doesn't seem to be the inclination?
  - ColinWright 10y ago
    I'd be interested to know what you're suggesting here. The way Mastodon works is that on a given instance there is a local timeline, and you can see everything people toot on that. Additionally, anything tooted by a followee of a local user appears in the federated timeline, as does anything boosted by a local user. It seems obvious that these are desirable features. What sort of gate-keeping are you suggesting? Things tooted on other instances don't turn up unless there's a reason - what then would you then require in addition?
    - arxpoetica 10y ago
      I probably don't understand Mastodon well enough so I might be tooting misinformation. ;) But to answer your question (and I'm probably oversimplifying a problem here), imagine Mastodon was more like WordPress, and less a bunch of federated servers. I set up a site, just for me, and "opt in" who I want to see—and no one else gets through. If you're worried about someone's content, just oust them/unfollow. Granted, this kind of federation requires a centralized follow tree which would have to be hosted somewhere else...OR with a different set of federated sites...(getting complex here)...
      - ColinWright 10y ago
        I still don't really understand what you're suggesting, but the hint I'm getting is that you're suggesting something interesting, but whatever it is, it's really not Mastodon. Local instances are like Twitter - you toot, everyone on the instance can see what you say. You can follow someone, and their tots turn up in your specific timeline. The flow of control is that you control what you see. You seem to be suggesting that people should somehow control who can see what they say. In a sense you can semi-do that. You can set all your toots to private, and then confirm "by hand" anyone who wants to follow you. In this way only those you have specifically confirmed can see what you say. Fair enough, that may be what you want. But in what sense would that ever be "social media"? You may as well have a mailing list. So with Mastodon you can follow people, and then only ever look at your timeline. That means you'll only ever see things by people you have specifically asked to see. And you can set all your toots to "Private", so only people you have specifically permitted to follow you will see what you say. So, what was it you wanted?

by rexpop 10y ago

onion2k 10y ago

Federating content on the public internet is a hard problem. That doesn't mean it's unsolvable though. Currently the only working the solution so far is massive human effort - that just puts managing a Mastodon instance outside of the possibility of doing it on your own. If you want to run a server you really need to recruit people to help. Mastodon makes it very easy to block users on other servers, and entire servers, so it's really a matter of further moderation rather than being actually impossible. There's also an effort by Mastodon admin to share a list of the potentially dangerous servers so admin can block them if they wish to.

djsumdog 10y ago
So does Mastodon cache everything, even people you don't visit/follow? ZeroNet only serves sites you actively visit, correct? I have been meaning to setup a Mastodon server, but haven't gotten around to it yet. Can't you just chose to help cache/serve content for only people you trust/follow?
- detaro 10y ago
  Who is "you" in your question? It serves any content a user on your instance follows (unless explicitly blocked).
arxpoetica 10y ago
My thoughts on this kind of federated gate keeping is that it should always be opt in. Explicit gate keeping in other words. In general though, this doesn't seem to be the inclination?
- ColinWright 10y ago
  I'd be interested to know what you're suggesting here. The way Mastodon works is that on a given instance there is a local timeline, and you can see everything people toot on that. Additionally, anything tooted by a followee of a local user appears in the federated timeline, as does anything boosted by a local user. It seems obvious that these are desirable features. What sort of gate-keeping are you suggesting? Things tooted on other instances don't turn up unless there's a reason - what then would you then require in addition?
  - arxpoetica 10y ago
    I probably don't understand Mastodon well enough so I might be tooting misinformation. ;) But to answer your question (and I'm probably oversimplifying a problem here), imagine Mastodon was more like WordPress, and less a bunch of federated servers. I set up a site, just for me, and "opt in" who I want to see—and no one else gets through. If you're worried about someone's content, just oust them/unfollow. Granted, this kind of federation requires a centralized follow tree which would have to be hosted somewhere else...OR with a different set of federated sites...(getting complex here)...
    - ColinWright 10y ago
      I still don't really understand what you're suggesting, but the hint I'm getting is that you're suggesting something interesting, but whatever it is, it's really not Mastodon. Local instances are like Twitter - you toot, everyone on the instance can see what you say. You can follow someone, and their tots turn up in your specific timeline. The flow of control is that you control what you see. You seem to be suggesting that people should somehow control who can see what they say. In a sense you can semi-do that. You can set all your toots to private, and then confirm "by hand" anyone who wants to follow you. In this way only those you have specifically confirmed can see what you say. Fair enough, that may be what you want. But in what sense would that ever be "social media"? You may as well have a mailing list. So with Mastodon you can follow people, and then only ever look at your timeline. That means you'll only ever see things by people you have specifically asked to see. And you can set all your toots to "Private", so only people you have specifically permitted to follow you will see what you say. So, what was it you wanted?