2 ms·

My understanding is that the project founder and/or leads are pursuing a campaign to pressure all instances to not peer with instances on their political blackl

My understanding is that the project founder and/or leads are pursuing a campaign to pressure all instances to not peer with instances on their political blacklist, and adding those who refuse to their peering demands to the blacklist. In effect the “fediverse” that is claimed as a benefit is in name only. I’m not sure what benefit the project offers anymore over centralized platforms since it is becoming the same thing as a result.

mattbk1 6y ago
Each instance is free to federate or not with every other instance. You have every right to post what you want, but there's no requirement for other people to listen.
Seirdy 6y ago
There exist a number of self-described free speech extremist instances, and moderated instances that only blacklist spammers like bot servers. There also exist instances that will blacklist servers with high levels of hate speech. You can pick or create an instance that meets your wants and needs, but other instances can exercise their freedom of association and choose not to federate with you. Things on the fediverse are also less black-and-white than you're portraying them. Some instances will prevent one instance's posts from showing up in the default public timeline of the whole known network, but will still federate with them; users will still be able to follow or be followed by members of the filtered instance normally. Users on Mastodon can also migrate their account to other Mastodon instances and keep their followers, but migrating from Mastodon to Pleroma is a bit lacking; fortunately, you can still put a redirect on your profile for future followers. TLDR: no, I don't think the fediverse is just like centralized social media.
djeiasbsbo 6y ago
The project "leads" or owners can only choose what happens to their own instances! If they choose not to interact with instances they disagree with, they should be allowed to do that; after all, they are hosting and administering their instances. Now if you create your own instance you can interact with every instance but they might not want to interact with yours. I don't understand how this makes it more centralised, please explain further. If anything, as an instance admin I would very much like to keep the freedom to choose with whom I want to interact with. The fediverse currently is also quite different than e.g. the email ecosystem. While we have big providers like GMail and Outlook there, companies have not really ventured into Mastodon yet. Instances like mastodon.social are run and moderated mostly by volunteers. So while the voice of mastodons creators might be influential, it really shouldn't pose a threat to you or your instance.

mattbk1 6y ago

Each instance is free to federate or not with every other instance. You have every right to post what you want, but there's no requirement for other people to listen.

Seirdy 6y ago

There exist a number of self-described free speech extremist instances, and moderated instances that only blacklist spammers like bot servers. There also exist instances that will blacklist servers with high levels of hate speech. You can pick or create an instance that meets your wants and needs, but other instances can exercise their freedom of association and choose not to federate with you. Things on the fediverse are also less black-and-white than you're portraying them. Some instances will prevent one instance's posts from showing up in the default public timeline of the whole known network, but will still federate with them; users will still be able to follow or be followed by members of the filtered instance normally. Users on Mastodon can also migrate their account to other Mastodon instances and keep their followers, but migrating from Mastodon to Pleroma is a bit lacking; fortunately, you can still put a redirect on your profile for future followers. TLDR: no, I don't think the fediverse is just like centralized social media.

djeiasbsbo 6y ago

The project "leads" or owners can only choose what happens to their own instances! If they choose not to interact with instances they disagree with, they should be allowed to do that; after all, they are hosting and administering their instances. Now if you create your own instance you can interact with every instance but they might not want to interact with yours. I don't understand how this makes it more centralised, please explain further. If anything, as an instance admin I would very much like to keep the freedom to choose with whom I want to interact with. The fediverse currently is also quite different than e.g. the email ecosystem. While we have big providers like GMail and Outlook there, companies have not really ventured into Mastodon yet. Instances like mastodon.social are run and moderated mostly by volunteers. So while the voice of mastodons creators might be influential, it really shouldn't pose a threat to you or your instance.