3 ms·
Yeah, a managed host means what the fediverse would call a public instance. The compromise of decentralization is that if you have an account on mastodon.socia
by NoGravitas 4y ago
Yeah, a managed host means what the fediverse would call a public instance.
The compromise of decentralization is that if you have an account on mastodon.social, they can censor you (for good or bad reasons), or the people you'd like to follow. You can move to another instance, but your identity has to change (though at least now you have a decent likelihood of being able to transfer your social graph along with you). And because discovery of instances is not perfectly frictionless, people tend to just sign up for the big instances (like mastodon.social).
All that said, any solution is also going to introduce new problems. And there's absolutely no reason to think that adding blockchains to the mix is going to do anything but harm.
- 2Gkashmiri 4y agoso how is blockchain supposed to mitigate identity remaining the same? i am assuming if i want to block a bad actor on the chain, i note that and later whenever someone queries their address, my note is shown so what is it solving? >And because discovery of instances is not perfectly frictionless, people tend to just sign up for the big instances the solution exists, sure it might not be frictionless as of now but its not like it is a fundamental problem? yeah, blockchain is not the solution. >The compromise of decentralization is that if you have an account on mastodon.social, they can censor you admins of mastodon.social can but so can any other instance so how is that a bad thing? how do we equally fight spammers/bad actors and at the same time prevent good people who have been banned to say their words? isnt good/bad inherently a subjective issue that is to be decided by a person? activitypub gives users and admins the power to decide so what is the problem there? i am not questioning you specifically, just asking