6 ms·

This seems fair, unless these blocklists are used to bully neutral servers into adopting your blocklist? Let's say there's a federation of bully admins who dis

This seems fair, unless these blocklists are used to bully neutral servers into adopting your blocklist? Let's say there's a federation of bully admins who dislike Server Wrongthink. There's a moderate server Moderate which they're federated with, but Moderate does not block Wrongthink. In this scenario, will Moderate get blocked too? Or only Wrongthink?

phoe-krk 3y ago
You calling them "bully" implies that they should not have a right to federate only with instances that they consider federation-worthy. Who are you to tell them what they ought to do with their own instances? Also, the problem you describe is a social problem. You can't solve those with technology, as they say around HN.
- whatshisface 3y ago
  But they are acting as bullies, both in the hypothetical example, and in several real-life cases. If a hypothetical right involves causing harm to others, maybe it's not the right one first suggested.
  - phoe-krk 3y ago
    Them being "bullies", whatever is meant by "bullying" in this context, doesn't deprive them of their right to own their instances or align with administrators with similar moderation policies. Fediverse is literally built on the idea that people own their instances and therefore all own the choices they make that affect these instances, just as you own the choice to call their flocking behavior "bullying". Or, in other words, what are you expecting? It's their hardware and their software. If one pays for hosting, and owns the software, then - unlike you or me - they're entitled to do as they wish with their stuff and to bear the consequences of any moral judgments they make. Which is the same as Twitter, same as Threads, same as Bluesky, just on a smaller and more interconnected scale.
    - whatshisface 3y ago
      A lot of people would say I'm transgressing my bounds if I try to use the influence I gained by paying for my server to threaten you into changing what content your server serves to your users. That's the essence of "block X or I'll block you."
      - phoe-krk 3y ago
        And? They have a right to do so. In particular, they have a right to defederate any server for any reasons - which includes mine, yours, or this other person's, with or without asking things like "block X or I'll block you".
        whatshisface 3y ago
        Isn't that a bit like saying a gold prospector has a right to shoot anybody in the whole Wild West, all because he can?
        phoe-krk 3y ago
        Equating murder, even attempted, with defederation - this is a fallacy.
        whatshisface 3y ago
        The only way for the analogy to hold no water at all would be for bans and deceleration to not harm anyone; that's not true in many cases.
        phoe-krk 3y ago
        I think that a better analogy would be: if someone shows up at your doorstep, you are free to not let them in.

phoe-krk 3y ago

You calling them "bully" implies that they should not have a right to federate only with instances that they consider federation-worthy. Who are you to tell them what they ought to do with their own instances? Also, the problem you describe is a social problem. You can't solve those with technology, as they say around HN.

whatshisface 3y ago
But they are acting as bullies, both in the hypothetical example, and in several real-life cases. If a hypothetical right involves causing harm to others, maybe it's not the right one first suggested.
- phoe-krk 3y ago
  Them being "bullies", whatever is meant by "bullying" in this context, doesn't deprive them of their right to own their instances or align with administrators with similar moderation policies. Fediverse is literally built on the idea that people own their instances and therefore all own the choices they make that affect these instances, just as you own the choice to call their flocking behavior "bullying". Or, in other words, what are you expecting? It's their hardware and their software. If one pays for hosting, and owns the software, then - unlike you or me - they're entitled to do as they wish with their stuff and to bear the consequences of any moral judgments they make. Which is the same as Twitter, same as Threads, same as Bluesky, just on a smaller and more interconnected scale.
  - whatshisface 3y ago
    A lot of people would say I'm transgressing my bounds if I try to use the influence I gained by paying for my server to threaten you into changing what content your server serves to your users. That's the essence of "block X or I'll block you."
    - phoe-krk 3y ago
      And? They have a right to do so. In particular, they have a right to defederate any server for any reasons - which includes mine, yours, or this other person's, with or without asking things like "block X or I'll block you".
      - whatshisface 3y ago
        Isn't that a bit like saying a gold prospector has a right to shoot anybody in the whole Wild West, all because he can?
        phoe-krk 3y ago
        Equating murder, even attempted, with defederation - this is a fallacy.
        whatshisface 3y ago
        The only way for the analogy to hold no water at all would be for bans and deceleration to not harm anyone; that's not true in many cases.
        phoe-krk 3y ago
        I think that a better analogy would be: if someone shows up at your doorstep, you are free to not let them in.