Sounds like it'd just be another Mastodon -- and heck, likely get federated (or in most cases, not federated...the whole issue with Mastodon) in with the rest.

Sounds like it'd just be another Mastodon -- and heck, likely get federated (or in most cases, not federated...the whole issue with Mastodon) in with the rest. Back in the Usenet days we had killfiles to do user based filtering -- everything would get sent out, and users would decide what sort of content they didn't want to see. Obviously it was harder back then to just spin up a new identity, so it's not simply a matter of taking the old tech and slapping it on the new, but the approach avoided the splinter effect we get trying to decide for users what will and won't be available to them (whether they like it or not). Snowden actually tweeted a week or two about how trivial this would be to implement on Twitter if they ever actually wanted to (with a working one liner to prove it). The issue thus far has usually been that advertising funded social media THRIVES on the controversy, and only moderates what it needs to to keep advertisers happy. They don't WANT you to make it a pleasant experience, because controversy and fights get more ad views. Perhaps at some point bandwidth becomes cheap enough that we can cut back on how much of a role advertisers play in steering the ship. Until then I don't see a great solution to any of this.