4 ms·
From that Twitter thread it doesn't sound like they were outright blocked, right? It seems to say a permission check was added for those users, so they had to
by pimterry 4y ago
From that Twitter thread it doesn't sound like they were outright blocked, right?
It seems to say a permission check was added for those users, so they had to accepted as followers by people on Mastodon.social before they could interact with them or view their posts.
That's a divisive thing to do, but it doesn't seem the same as a full disconnection - if there's anybody you know on the other server who wants to talk to you, or if there's anybody you were already happily following & talking to there then everything continues working just fine.
It's just that when you try to follow new people then they get a prompt to decide if they want to let you do that first, effectively making their profiles default-private. I don't know anything about the specific objections at the time so I can't comment, but in general that seems like a fairly sensible way to deal with bad actors.
- throwanem 4y ago> It's just that when you try to follow new people then they get a prompt to decide if they want to let you do that first, effectively making their profiles default-private. Not exactly. Requiring follow requests be approved, and defaulting new posts to other than fully public status, both exist as orthogonal profile settings in Mastodon and all forks of which I'm aware. I don't have any specific familiarity on the Inditoot situation, but it sounds like the action taken by mastodon.social admins amounted to effectively overriding the "follow requests have to be approved" setting to true specifically for requests from Inditoot members. That seems fairly reasonable to me, too.