3 ms·
yeah , defederation. it would be better to have a protocol that doesnt allow that.
by cblconfederate 5y ago
yeah , defederation. it would be better to have a protocol that doesnt allow that.
- russdpale 5y agoSo if someone spun a child porn instance, we should all be forced to see that in our federated timeline? Come on, get real.
- cblconfederate 5y agono but it could be up to the receiver address to choose what to block.
- albertgoeswoof 5y agoThat’s literally how it works now
- riffic 5y agoemail works the same way. If I, as the email admin of xyzcorp.biz get too many spammy emails from your domain, you can expect to be blocked / defederated. are we dismissing smtp now as a protocol?
- cblconfederate 5y agoemail servers block by content/address though, not only entire domains
- johnny22 5y agothat's not true at all. I've ran mail servers. It's really easy to block by domain, and I have.
- dada78641 5y agoI think this is the correct way of doing it. Anyone can start their own instance and their own federation. It'd actually be a massive breach of freedom if you were somehow not allowed to shut out servers from your Mastodon federation—kind of like not having the freedom to block someone on Twitter.
- kstrauser 5y agoExactly. Anyone has the freedom to post whatever they want on their own server. I have the freedom not to carry their traffic.
- fomine3 5y agoBlocking each instance is the best way compared to other centered option.