4 ms·

> In practice, server admins are more than happy to block federation with entire other domains (and all associated users, hundreds or thousands at a time) based

> In practice, server admins are more than happy to block federation with entire other domains (and all associated users, hundreds or thousands at a time) based on little more than gossip and rumor. If that is easily possible this is doomed from the start, IMO. You get into situations where you are at the mercy of a single person. The linked issue's closing comment is even more backward. The issue opener did not asked for talking to people which do not want talk to him. Blocking between users is one thing, and can be good to have. Their issue was that the whole federate instance doesn't peers with him, out of theirs or the federated instance in questions people choice or support. Peering needs to be done unconditionally, even over edges, IMO. Blocking needs to be in the sole control of the user, not the admin of a federation server. All else doesn't makes this better than Facebook, or any other single server instance without federation.

rglullis 7y ago
Agreed on all points, except that with Mastodon is always possible to create a single-user instance where (a) you are in control of the blocklists and (b) admins of other instances will be less likely to block you.
- tlamponi 7y ago
  (b) less likely is, well, less likely. Better but not of use, as seen in the linked issue you can easily "loose" access to 19000 other people, just due to one admin with whatever reasoning, good or bad, they have - in a "Fediverse" it should be never the decision of the admin for the users. At least if the goal is not having silos and decentralization.
  - rglullis 7y ago
    You are absolutely right. I just wanted to point out that this is a Mastodon-specific thing and (I believe) one that will self-correct with time.
progval 7y ago
> You get into situations where you are at the mercy of a single person. How is it worse than Twitter, which can also ban you? At least on the Fediverse you can choose who that person is, and it can even be yourself if you host your own instance. > Peering needs to be done unconditionally, even over edges, IMO. What about instances that are mostly spam? What about instances that are dedicated to harassment (eg. Kiwifarms)? Besides, you're free to use an instance with a block policy that aligns with your opinion.
- tlamponi 7y ago
  > How is it worse than Twitter, which can also ban you? Who said anything about twitter and worse?? Shouldn't this be better than Twitter? > What about instances that are mostly spam? What about instances that are dedicated to harassment (eg. Kiwifarms)? Why is that an issue? You do not get spewed their spam in your face as long as you do not follow anybody? It has to be the users decision, anything else is doomed to be abused against users. And if this would become an issue, and one want's to have a more drastic approach to handle bad apples a decision of the a federates instances users, i.e., a conses or quorum, needs to decide. > you're free to use an instance with a block policy that aligns with your opinion No, you do not understand the basic issue here. Not only the block policy of the instance I'm on is the issue, but all the others. So how does your proposal solves this?
  - progval 7y ago
    > Who said anything about twitter and worse?? Shouldn't this be better than Twitter? I personally believe the Fediverse is better than Twitter in that regard, but everyone should agree that it's at least not worse. > a conses or quorum, needs to decide. Some instances do that, eg. https://social.coop/ https://social.coop/ > So how does your proposal solves this? I didn't make a proposal, just explained what I see as an early Mastodon user. > Not only the block policy of the instance I'm on is the issue, but all the others. Again, Fediverse users choosing instances is like Twitter users choosing blocklists. If they are on an instance which blocks yours, then either: 1. they are aware of their instance's policy, so they indirectly agree with the decision of not seeing your toots 2. they are unaware of their instance's policy, which is a bad decision on their part.

rglullis 7y ago

Agreed on all points, except that with Mastodon is always possible to create a single-user instance where (a) you are in control of the blocklists and (b) admins of other instances will be less likely to block you.

tlamponi 7y ago
(b) less likely is, well, less likely. Better but not of use, as seen in the linked issue you can easily "loose" access to 19000 other people, just due to one admin with whatever reasoning, good or bad, they have - in a "Fediverse" it should be never the decision of the admin for the users. At least if the goal is not having silos and decentralization.
- rglullis 7y ago
  You are absolutely right. I just wanted to point out that this is a Mastodon-specific thing and (I believe) one that will self-correct with time.

progval 7y ago

> You get into situations where you are at the mercy of a single person. How is it worse than Twitter, which can also ban you? At least on the Fediverse you can choose who that person is, and it can even be yourself if you host your own instance. > Peering needs to be done unconditionally, even over edges, IMO. What about instances that are mostly spam? What about instances that are dedicated to harassment (eg. Kiwifarms)? Besides, you're free to use an instance with a block policy that aligns with your opinion.

tlamponi 7y ago
> How is it worse than Twitter, which can also ban you? Who said anything about twitter and worse?? Shouldn't this be better than Twitter? > What about instances that are mostly spam? What about instances that are dedicated to harassment (eg. Kiwifarms)? Why is that an issue? You do not get spewed their spam in your face as long as you do not follow anybody? It has to be the users decision, anything else is doomed to be abused against users. And if this would become an issue, and one want's to have a more drastic approach to handle bad apples a decision of the a federates instances users, i.e., a conses or quorum, needs to decide. > you're free to use an instance with a block policy that aligns with your opinion No, you do not understand the basic issue here. Not only the block policy of the instance I'm on is the issue, but all the others. So how does your proposal solves this?
- progval 7y ago
  > Who said anything about twitter and worse?? Shouldn't this be better than Twitter? I personally believe the Fediverse is better than Twitter in that regard, but everyone should agree that it's at least not worse. > a conses or quorum, needs to decide. Some instances do that, eg. https://social.coop/ https://social.coop/ > So how does your proposal solves this? I didn't make a proposal, just explained what I see as an early Mastodon user. > Not only the block policy of the instance I'm on is the issue, but all the others. Again, Fediverse users choosing instances is like Twitter users choosing blocklists. If they are on an instance which blocks yours, then either: 1. they are aware of their instance's policy, so they indirectly agree with the decision of not seeing your toots 2. they are unaware of their instance's policy, which is a bad decision on their part.