12 ms·

The whole blocking situation turns me away from Mastodon. Short of maintaining my own instance, there's no way to be sure I can follow anyone I'd like to, or co

The whole blocking situation turns me away from Mastodon. Short of maintaining my own instance, there's no way to be sure I can follow anyone I'd like to, or communicate with them. There's no way to find out from the outside if an instance is defederated.

young_unixer 6y ago
I left Mastodon because the big "traditional"/sanctioned instances started banning other instances they didn't like, specifically Gab (instance full of right-wing people that allows basically anything that isn't illegal). I had high hopes for Mastodon but whatever, this whole social network thing isn't worth the trouble. Now HN and Youtube are the only websites I visit for entertainment.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- charliebrownau 6y ago
  Masterdon is just more examples of when you have - left feminists - left sjw - left LGBT - left "diversity" - left socialists - left commies - Jews - ISLAM running a - platform - server - company your never going to get pro freedom/pro free speech for all inviduals and everyone held to the SAME STANDARD How many times does this shit need to happen Another 100 Another 1000 until no right wing pro freedom white person is employed or allowed to speak by 2030 If they cant accept our speech then maybe we need to do SELF SEGERATION on RACE/ETHNIC lines and POLTICAL LEANING Comifornia can be for the Global Commies, Socialists, vegans, sjw , feminists, jews and blacks that are LEFT WING Texas can be right wing whites only pro freedom pro gun ethnic nationalism Other states can choose LEFT OR RIGHT Civic Nationalism or ethnic nationalism Multi culturalism doesnt work when multiple groups are held to different laws and standards and it ends up WHITE STRAIGHT MALES are the only fucking group held accountable to the full extent while the system goverment and courts cover up stats and crime from WOMEN BLACKS JEWS ISLAM GOVERNMENT BANKS CORPORATIONS
- DarkWiiPlayer 6y ago
  I had a quick look at mastodon a while ago and saw a few more problems with the model, but I wasn't aware instances could block each other. Maybe some day there will be an even more decentralized alternative (Looking at you, indieweb) where it is up to the user whom they block. I'm also not a huge fan of how mastodon is an implementation, more than a protocol.
  - ldjb 6y ago
    So long as instances are serving content from other instances (pretty much required for a social network), there will be demand to be able to block other instances. Of course, people could just host their own instance, which is possible with Mastodon, and is indeed what a lot of people already do. Mastodon uses the ActivityPub protocol, and there are other implementations that use this protocol (Pleroma, for example).
  - zdkl 6y ago
    Have you looked into ActivityStreams? It might be the protocol you're looking for! https://www.w3.org/TR/activitystreams-core/ https://www.w3.org/TR/activitystreams-core/
    - cjslep 6y ago
      ActivityStreams is a data format, not a protocol. ActivityPub is the protocol that Mastodon, Pleroma, etc use which shares ActivityStreams data.
  - vertex-four 6y ago
    I, as a user, am still going to demand that I can join a community where of likeminded people and moderation so I don't have to deal with the overwhelming spam of the internet myself. That's the bit that a number of decentralisation projects don't get - I don't want to have messages by anyone on the whole internet forced into my view (because have you seen how much that sucks?). I want moderation if the day-to-day use of the tool involves coming across a largely random group of people - otherwise it's just a platform for harassment and spamming people with child porn, a la Matrix - and I don't want to perform that moderation 100% by myself.
- fomine3 6y ago
  Actually It's better than traditional centralized system like Twitter. If it's centralized , you can't do anything after banned. On decentralized SNS, you can join the problematic instance or start a your own instance that not banning.
- simias 6y ago
  I don't understand this mindset at all. It's not so much "I want to be able to say whatever I want", it's "I want everybody to listen to whatever I say". Go post edgy xenophobic stuff in your dedicated online community if you like it so much but stop acting surprised when other communities want nothing to do with you.
  - dgellow 6y ago
    I believe that the issue discussed is more about mods having that control instead of the user itself. Not about the fact that everybody should listen to everything. I understand that the question is: should the mod define who “the community” the community can connect with, or not?
    - jack1243star 6y ago
      Exactly. Maybe some heuristics or even deep learning could help retaining control. But then we would succumb once again to the Eldritch Algorithm gods...
    - gargron 6y ago
      Very few people actually want to filter through the unadulterated garbage of the internet on their own. What you want to do on social media is like, read the news, talk to friends, or promote your work. You probably don't want to spend every minute of your online presence blocking new spammers, new trolls, death threats, conspiracy theories, and the like, just to make your feed somewhat usable. So you delegate this task to moderators. On a centralized platform like Twitter or Facebook, you don't get to choose moderators. Facebook decides it doesn't belong on its platform? It's gone. You have no recourse. With Mastodon, you get to a) pick a server with policies that you like in the first place b) you can switch to another server if you're unhappy with the original one. Server blocks are just an extension of that function. If a spammer creates a new server under their own control and creates a million accounts to send spam from, do you expect moderators from other servers to just click "block" a million times? No, that's why the bulk option exists. There's no way it couldn't.
  - numpad0 6y ago
novok 6y ago
It is too bad that mastodon is less RSS / Email and more IRC chatroom networks, but that's what it is.
- robobro 6y ago
  Yeah, gnusocial and family felt like glorified RSS readers + feeds to me. That's what attracted me to the network initially. My own Mastodon/Pleroma client is built entirely around the concept of "feeds" (whether it be user, hashtag, conversation thread) and simple combinations of feeds (eg grouping together multiple hashtags to form a "topic" or multiple users to form a "group"). Mastodon should be the exact opposite of IRC imo. Hashtags or message threads can act as a simulated chatroom but generally speaking, the power of feed-based social networks is that they invert the traditional power structure, thus yielding more interesting content.
cjslep 6y ago
Have you seen the "About" page on instances? It lists exactly what you want: what instances are defederated by the instance. Here's the page for the instance I reside in: https://mastodon.technology/about/more https://mastodon.technology/about/more
- jack1243star 6y ago
  Yes, I forgot about this feature (is this opt-in or default on by the instance owner?) This addresses my last point. But admins can still choose to block instances in the future that I might have interest interacting with. It is like a gamble choosing an instance. Making an instance is tedious, and once someone in charge finds out who you hangout with, your domain name gets blocked. Such is socializing.
  - cjslep 6y ago
    > But admins can still choose to block instances in the future that I might have interest interacting with. It is like a gamble choosing an instance. Then have multiple accounts and abide by each instances' rules. > Making an instance is tedious, and once someone in charge finds out who you hangout with, your domain name gets blocked. Such is socializing. You can still hang out with the folks you were hanging out with. They blocking you has no bearing over who you hang out with, unless you let them get under your skin. Based on your responses here and elsewhere it sounds like you have a bone to pick with Mastodon because you can't find a solution where you get to be heard by everyone all the time, from the far-left to the far-right. That's not a right and that's not "free speech", that's trampling on others' freedom of association and their right to build communities as they see fit: Not every person is welcome in every community. Who are you and I to dictate what a "correct, healthy community" is?
    - jack1243star 6y ago
      Please don't put words in my mouth, personally I don't have anything worthy of being heard. I really wanted Mastodon to be where I can find everyone. To be free of censorship, ads and algorithm-induced bubbles. I am lucky to have the "right" mentality (in regard to the tech industry), so I am not often suppressed, but everyone is different. I don't want to impose on someone a "correct, healthy community". Blocking an instance seems to do so.

young_unixer 6y ago

I left Mastodon because the big "traditional"/sanctioned instances started banning other instances they didn't like, specifically Gab (instance full of right-wing people that allows basically anything that isn't illegal). I had high hopes for Mastodon but whatever, this whole social network thing isn't worth the trouble. Now HN and Youtube are the only websites I visit for entertainment.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
charliebrownau 6y ago
Masterdon is just more examples of when you have - left feminists - left sjw - left LGBT - left "diversity" - left socialists - left commies - Jews - ISLAM running a - platform - server - company your never going to get pro freedom/pro free speech for all inviduals and everyone held to the SAME STANDARD How many times does this shit need to happen Another 100 Another 1000 until no right wing pro freedom white person is employed or allowed to speak by 2030 If they cant accept our speech then maybe we need to do SELF SEGERATION on RACE/ETHNIC lines and POLTICAL LEANING Comifornia can be for the Global Commies, Socialists, vegans, sjw , feminists, jews and blacks that are LEFT WING Texas can be right wing whites only pro freedom pro gun ethnic nationalism Other states can choose LEFT OR RIGHT Civic Nationalism or ethnic nationalism Multi culturalism doesnt work when multiple groups are held to different laws and standards and it ends up WHITE STRAIGHT MALES are the only fucking group held accountable to the full extent while the system goverment and courts cover up stats and crime from WOMEN BLACKS JEWS ISLAM GOVERNMENT BANKS CORPORATIONS
DarkWiiPlayer 6y ago
I had a quick look at mastodon a while ago and saw a few more problems with the model, but I wasn't aware instances could block each other. Maybe some day there will be an even more decentralized alternative (Looking at you, indieweb) where it is up to the user whom they block. I'm also not a huge fan of how mastodon is an implementation, more than a protocol.
- ldjb 6y ago
  So long as instances are serving content from other instances (pretty much required for a social network), there will be demand to be able to block other instances. Of course, people could just host their own instance, which is possible with Mastodon, and is indeed what a lot of people already do. Mastodon uses the ActivityPub protocol, and there are other implementations that use this protocol (Pleroma, for example).
- zdkl 6y ago
  Have you looked into ActivityStreams? It might be the protocol you're looking for! https://www.w3.org/TR/activitystreams-core/ https://www.w3.org/TR/activitystreams-core/
  - cjslep 6y ago
    ActivityStreams is a data format, not a protocol. ActivityPub is the protocol that Mastodon, Pleroma, etc use which shares ActivityStreams data.
- vertex-four 6y ago
  I, as a user, am still going to demand that I can join a community where of likeminded people and moderation so I don't have to deal with the overwhelming spam of the internet myself. That's the bit that a number of decentralisation projects don't get - I don't want to have messages by anyone on the whole internet forced into my view (because have you seen how much that sucks?). I want moderation if the day-to-day use of the tool involves coming across a largely random group of people - otherwise it's just a platform for harassment and spamming people with child porn, a la Matrix - and I don't want to perform that moderation 100% by myself.
fomine3 6y ago
Actually It's better than traditional centralized system like Twitter. If it's centralized , you can't do anything after banned. On decentralized SNS, you can join the problematic instance or start a your own instance that not banning.
simias 6y ago
I don't understand this mindset at all. It's not so much "I want to be able to say whatever I want", it's "I want everybody to listen to whatever I say". Go post edgy xenophobic stuff in your dedicated online community if you like it so much but stop acting surprised when other communities want nothing to do with you.
- dgellow 6y ago
  I believe that the issue discussed is more about mods having that control instead of the user itself. Not about the fact that everybody should listen to everything. I understand that the question is: should the mod define who “the community” the community can connect with, or not?
  - jack1243star 6y ago
    Exactly. Maybe some heuristics or even deep learning could help retaining control. But then we would succumb once again to the Eldritch Algorithm gods...
  - gargron 6y ago
    Very few people actually want to filter through the unadulterated garbage of the internet on their own. What you want to do on social media is like, read the news, talk to friends, or promote your work. You probably don't want to spend every minute of your online presence blocking new spammers, new trolls, death threats, conspiracy theories, and the like, just to make your feed somewhat usable. So you delegate this task to moderators. On a centralized platform like Twitter or Facebook, you don't get to choose moderators. Facebook decides it doesn't belong on its platform? It's gone. You have no recourse. With Mastodon, you get to a) pick a server with policies that you like in the first place b) you can switch to another server if you're unhappy with the original one. Server blocks are just an extension of that function. If a spammer creates a new server under their own control and creates a million accounts to send spam from, do you expect moderators from other servers to just click "block" a million times? No, that's why the bulk option exists. There's no way it couldn't.
- numpad0 6y ago

novok 6y ago

It is too bad that mastodon is less RSS / Email and more IRC chatroom networks, but that's what it is.

robobro 6y ago
Yeah, gnusocial and family felt like glorified RSS readers + feeds to me. That's what attracted me to the network initially. My own Mastodon/Pleroma client is built entirely around the concept of "feeds" (whether it be user, hashtag, conversation thread) and simple combinations of feeds (eg grouping together multiple hashtags to form a "topic" or multiple users to form a "group"). Mastodon should be the exact opposite of IRC imo. Hashtags or message threads can act as a simulated chatroom but generally speaking, the power of feed-based social networks is that they invert the traditional power structure, thus yielding more interesting content.

cjslep 6y ago

Have you seen the "About" page on instances? It lists exactly what you want: what instances are defederated by the instance. Here's the page for the instance I reside in: https://mastodon.technology/about/more https://mastodon.technology/about/more

jack1243star 6y ago
Yes, I forgot about this feature (is this opt-in or default on by the instance owner?) This addresses my last point. But admins can still choose to block instances in the future that I might have interest interacting with. It is like a gamble choosing an instance. Making an instance is tedious, and once someone in charge finds out who you hangout with, your domain name gets blocked. Such is socializing.
- cjslep 6y ago
  > But admins can still choose to block instances in the future that I might have interest interacting with. It is like a gamble choosing an instance. Then have multiple accounts and abide by each instances' rules. > Making an instance is tedious, and once someone in charge finds out who you hangout with, your domain name gets blocked. Such is socializing. You can still hang out with the folks you were hanging out with. They blocking you has no bearing over who you hang out with, unless you let them get under your skin. Based on your responses here and elsewhere it sounds like you have a bone to pick with Mastodon because you can't find a solution where you get to be heard by everyone all the time, from the far-left to the far-right. That's not a right and that's not "free speech", that's trampling on others' freedom of association and their right to build communities as they see fit: Not every person is welcome in every community. Who are you and I to dictate what a "correct, healthy community" is?
  - jack1243star 6y ago
    Please don't put words in my mouth, personally I don't have anything worthy of being heard. I really wanted Mastodon to be where I can find everyone. To be free of censorship, ads and algorithm-induced bubbles. I am lucky to have the "right" mentality (in regard to the tech industry), so I am not often suppressed, but everyone is different. I don't want to impose on someone a "correct, healthy community". Blocking an instance seems to do so.