3 ms·
The first figure is lower than I'd have guessed, thanks for the correction. As for the latter, that's immaterial—the more important it is to get server-to-serv
by handrous 5y ago
The first figure is lower than I'd have guessed, thanks for the correction.
As for the latter, that's immaterial—the more important it is to get server-to-server federation un-blocked with matrix.org, the more that can be taken as a sign of centralization. Moreover, if a large percentage of servers follow the Matrix.org blocklist, that's precisely the kind of centralized control the original poster was asking about.
(mind, none of this is intended as judgement, just clarifying why matrix.org would have substantial de facto "control" of the ecosystem & network, to use the original poster's word)
- Arathorn 5y ago> the more important it is to get server-to-server federation un-blocked with matrix.org, the more that can be taken as a sign of centralization This was my point. We never blocked server-to-server federation with matrix.org. We published a blocklist of the abusive servers, and blocked them from the rooms which we manage on the server. There was never any centralised control applied, and there is no mechanism to do so (unless room/server admins opt in to using the blocklists we publish, but they are very welcome to use their own).