3 ms·

> You don't have to look very hard to find screaming racists, furries, and lolicons. They make no effort to hide themselves since operators apparently endorse t

> You don't have to look very hard to find screaming racists, furries, and lolicons. They make no effort to hide themselves since operators apparently endorse that sort of behavior as long as it fits their own particular biases and kinks. Of course not. It's on the Internet. I don't have a problem with furries, people with bias or kinks. What if I'm one of those people, should I not be allowed to make public comment? None of the instances I've used tolerate the harmful examples such as racists or lolicons, that you've incorrectly lumped together with perfectly cromulent lifestyles, and thanks to that I've barely seen any. And on the odd occasion I do, I just ban the user or the entire instance and move on. This happens maybe five times a year, if that.

odnes_lex 4y ago
Referring to furries as a "perfectly cromulent lifestyle" is such a probably unintentionally fraternal salute in terms of antinormativity/cultural openess. Good vibes.
EarlKing 4y ago
> What if I'm one of those people, should I not be allowed to make public comment? If you do, do not be surprised when the service you're using gains a reputation accordingly. > And on the odd occasion I do, I just ban the user or the entire instance and move on. Yeah, that's actually part of the problem. If anyone can ban anyone for any reason then you don't actually have a federation. You have, at best, a gathering of barely-interoperable fiefdoms. You can either have a federation of commoditized servers or you can ban people you don't like -- you cannot have both.
- thinkmassive 4y ago
  You’re trying to redefine “federation” and failing… It’s a protocol for independent systems to automatically exchange some information. It’s not a distributed system of interchangeable instances.
- mynameisvlad 4y ago
  > You can either have a federation of commoditized servers or you can ban people you don't like -- you cannot have both. Why not? A person is only banned from one instance, they are free to choose another and federate across any instances they haven’t been banned from. That sure sounds like having both federation and the ability to ban. These are not public utilities. A person or organization doesn’t have to support someone with opposing views to them. And that’s ok. And that doesn’t break federation, except to specific instances for specific people.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- vidarh 4y ago
  The big lesson from places like USENET is the opposite: Functioning federation depends entirely on good tools for users to filter and ban people and content.
- xani_ 4y ago
  > You can either have a federation of commoditized servers or you can ban people you don't like -- you cannot have both. That's not incompatible. You can go anywhere you want but you can get banned from place if you're an ass there is entirely sensible way for federated network to work. More than that, it's necessary if you want any resistance to bad actors

odnes_lex 4y ago

Referring to furries as a "perfectly cromulent lifestyle" is such a probably unintentionally fraternal salute in terms of antinormativity/cultural openess. Good vibes.

EarlKing 4y ago

> What if I'm one of those people, should I not be allowed to make public comment? If you do, do not be surprised when the service you're using gains a reputation accordingly. > And on the odd occasion I do, I just ban the user or the entire instance and move on. Yeah, that's actually part of the problem. If anyone can ban anyone for any reason then you don't actually have a federation. You have, at best, a gathering of barely-interoperable fiefdoms. You can either have a federation of commoditized servers or you can ban people you don't like -- you cannot have both.

thinkmassive 4y ago
You’re trying to redefine “federation” and failing… It’s a protocol for independent systems to automatically exchange some information. It’s not a distributed system of interchangeable instances.
mynameisvlad 4y ago
> You can either have a federation of commoditized servers or you can ban people you don't like -- you cannot have both. Why not? A person is only banned from one instance, they are free to choose another and federate across any instances they haven’t been banned from. That sure sounds like having both federation and the ability to ban. These are not public utilities. A person or organization doesn’t have to support someone with opposing views to them. And that’s ok. And that doesn’t break federation, except to specific instances for specific people.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
vidarh 4y ago
The big lesson from places like USENET is the opposite: Functioning federation depends entirely on good tools for users to filter and ban people and content.
xani_ 4y ago
> You can either have a federation of commoditized servers or you can ban people you don't like -- you cannot have both. That's not incompatible. You can go anywhere you want but you can get banned from place if you're an ass there is entirely sensible way for federated network to work. More than that, it's necessary if you want any resistance to bad actors