I want less server blocking here, but there are at least 26k servers on the fedi. ~1500 block poast while ~100 block mastodon.social. I want a norm of only blocking servers that freely host users who are assholes to other users (thus making the fedi less welcoming overall) but remember that there's a history here and reasons why this culture exists. It's opening up but please be considerate. #fediblockmeta
that link you posted uses a tool hosted on kiwifarms who are notorious bigots / cyberstalkers who torment people until they kill themselves, I'm assuming you're just naive about that
I also gotta ask why you want less blocking?
I would make a case that blocking large instances like mastodon.social are good for the network as it allows smaller instances more visability, MS also federates with Meta which is evil and a threat to the fediverse itself
while I don't think you should fediblock i.e. publicking call for collective blocking of an instance without good reason, on an individual level instances and users can block whoever they want for whatever reason they want, and that's a good thing, it minimizes conflict and increases visability for everyone else not blocked, it creates a more robust, more decentralized network, lightens the server load of individual instances, and makes the experiences of individual instances more unique. You can't possibly communicate with all the thousands of servers and millions of users on fedi, this is just as true on corporate networks where the algorythm decides who is more visable, here, you decide.
I want everybody talking to everybody as much as possible. I want everyone here. the goal of the fedi should be a public square, but even more than that, the way for the people collectively to decide what info, ideas and art goes viral w/o the influence of big money/power. so I'm obviously divided on meta cause they bring a lot of people but like any big instance, might fuck things up.
The tool is valuable imo but I don't support harassment. I wish it was part of something like fediDB.
@wjmaggos everyone can't talk to everyone tho, it's just not possible, maybe a few hundred to a few thousand a person can communicate with but certainly not millions , and things can still go viral without everything being in a giant pool, the nature of federated networks is it's that you have clusters at various degrees of distance and subdivision, this allows for greater diversity, but there are still links with the level of blocking there is ( for example if you block an instance, someone you federate with may not block them, so a meme or link may still circulate to you)
I mean with the whole public square metaphor everyone doesn't talk to everyone either, you can talk to the people in your vicinity, you choose who to asosciate with, certainly there are more visible people, but with the person on the soapbox that's a one way mode of communication -- you seem to imagine the twitter based model of a handful of big accounts that everyone sees while there are millions of little people with a few dozen followers, that's not equitable or decentralized, it is in many ways a centralized one way channel of communication curated by a corporate algorithm, so here more people are visable to more people but there are few few mega-celebrities. ( even then you have george takei and robert reich etc. )
I think we agree but the more disconnects, the less likely something will make it to you. esp from/to smaller instances. and some people want to block servers if that server federates with servers they don't like. how far could that go? somebody could write a crawler or something and then try to enforce some rules.
re mega celebs, I would love for that to die. beyond electeds, they are largely a result of mass media culture. I'd like decentralized social graph culture to replace that.
Add comment