6 ms·

I left Mastodon because the big "traditional"/sanctioned instances started banning other instances they didn't like, specifically Gab (instance full of right-wi

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.
  - jack1243star 6y ago
    Then what is the point of federation? You just described a centralized forum/microblogging server.
    - 6y ago
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

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.
- jack1243star 6y ago
  Then what is the point of federation? You just described a centralized forum/microblogging server.
  - 6y ago

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