Post AJm6g2e5cTMyODOVYu by tio@social.trom.tf
(DIR) More posts by tio@social.trom.tf
(DIR) Post #AJlN8JgHHRzlRMxiWe by tio@social.trom.tf
2022-05-05T12:11:44Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
PeerTube does it very well when it comes to the Federation-Moderation. Listen!PeerTube allows you, the admin, to keep your instance clean. Nice rhyme! :)You can follow any instance, channel, user that you want. Restrict the search to only these. And so when people use your PeerTube they see your curated content only, even when they search for something. While at the same time any user on your PeerTube can still subscribe, watch, and interact with ANYONE on any other PeerTube instances. That's how it should be.A balance between having tremendous control over your own instance, but at the same time do not break the fediverse by cutting ties with other instances. Yes, PeerTube also gives admins the option to ban entire instances or users, but the fact that they give these positive reinforcers like mentioned above, makes an instance admin not want to use these "nuking" options.This is because I and others have insisted that they provide us with these tools. We suggested to them what to implement and it works! My instance was full of crap, even after I started to manage it in terms of what users can upload on our PeerTube. But after they introduced custom homepages, the ability to follow channels, instances, users and limit the trending, discover, the search and the like, to only these, since then my instance is a fuck ton cleaner. So it works.Why in the name of the fediverse I, the admin, may want to block any other instance when I have so much control over my own!?Oh, and PeerTube also allows any user to quickly block any user and even delete all at once all of their comments from their videos. So imagine if someone trolls you on PeerTube, with 1 click you ban them from ever posting and also delete ALL of their comments on ALL of your videos.Give users the power to protect themselves and make it very easy to do so. And give admins the power to keep their instances clean without the need of cutting ties with any other instances, something that will affect all users and have a slippery slope effect.Don't break the fediverse :D #tromlive
(DIR) Post #AJlN8K8da0gErKEMjI by graf@poa.st
2022-05-24T02:23:18.503464Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@tio I asked for one feature for poast from @alex and @mkljczk and people still cry about it til today. they probably broke fediverse more than anyone else ive seen to date
(DIR) Post #AJlNWNXgZjduMmPvH6 by Noided@sleepy.cafe
2022-05-24T02:27:41.057027Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@tio happy for you or sorry to hear that
(DIR) Post #AJlNvSyjV6EQSy1yoy by graf@poa.st
2022-05-24T02:32:08.691898Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@G117CH @alex @mkljczk @tio i didnt read any of this i just saw "break the fediverse" and I thought of marcin immediately
(DIR) Post #AJlODh2hwupzIWa6ts by MeBigbrain@poa.st
2022-05-24T02:35:31.205832Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@tio "Keep your instance clean?" There's a way to permanently keep out the fags, niggers, and jews????
(DIR) Post #AJlaHAucYBA8FtE2SG by ArneBab@rollenspiel.social
2022-05-23T20:09:25Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@tio I do get why people ban entire instances: Requiring every user to block every spammer manually does not scale: Spamming is then cheaper than blocking spammers.
(DIR) Post #AJlaHBE7Ngl5EMLbqS by tio@social.trom.tf
2022-05-23T20:16:50Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
I think the opposite is true: instead of 1 human dealing with the blocking for everyone's needs, which cannot scale up (maybe some instances bother some of your users but not others), then why not let the users do your job for themselves? Users can easily block others and entire instances on Mastodon. The moment you try to become everyone's dad, you will fuck things up, because not all of your "kids" are bothered by the same things. And you end up breaking the fediverse by blowing up bridges.
(DIR) Post #AJlaHBbA01BqNp80lE by ArneBab@rollenspiel.social
2022-05-23T20:23:23Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@tio One person blocking 100 spammers vs. 100 people blocking 100 spammers each — that’s 100 actions vs. 10.000 actions.If your instance is so big that the moderator cannot decide whether something is spam, then your instance might be too big.Or you need tools that scale better without centralizing control. Like the ones Freenet has: https://www.draketo.de/software/decentralized-moderation
(DIR) Post #AJlaHBw4kFv7QguiMS by tio@social.trom.tf
2022-05-23T20:43:07Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
If you get spammed by bots from particular instances of course no one would argue you should not block this. I am talking about unwanted content. Admins who block other instances based on politics, nudity, whatever else.
(DIR) Post #AJlaHCGdVoMoSSX8PQ by joeldebruijn@fosstodon.org
2022-05-24T04:44:02Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@tio @ArneBab `I can imagine moderating as a form of curation.Like a community of schools operating peertube instances.For pupils it would be very clear: if I go that instance I only see things my school offers as part of curricula without a myriad other vids.
(DIR) Post #AJlaIbP9XNsCi4BfGK by ArneBab@rollenspiel.social
2022-05-23T21:17:31Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@tio If you don’t like that, choose a different instance.An instance can be a community, not only a service.People can choose an instance precisely because of the rules of the instance.Why should people who don’t like nudity not be able to organize on their own instance that blocks all nudity?
(DIR) Post #AJlaIbmu74s7tjIdHc by tio@social.trom.tf
2022-05-23T21:26:59Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
I've heard that reply many times before: if you don't like it, go somewhere else. But this is irrelevant for what I am saying. I argue that the practice of banning instances by admins is detrimental to the entire fediverse. Same way you think banning nudity is ok because you have a little community of people who are afraid of nipples, others may think that being "gay" is detrimental to their own community. And so forth. And in the name of thousands, a dozen people will interrupt the communication. Let the "gays" talk to the nudists! You know what I mean!?And I was showcasing the example of Peertube which provides a great set of tools to keep your instance clean and safe without nuking any bridge.
(DIR) Post #AJlaIc9wjPIt3C52CO by ArneBab@rollenspiel.social
2022-05-23T22:12:33Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@tio Let’s replace the nipples and gays with targeted insults and ganging up on people.Do you understand what I mean?If you don’t like that, have a look at the tools that actually provide scaling defense against spam and such which I linked in my previous post: https://rollenspiel.social/@ArneBab/108353120076089161That said, I still think having instances with per-instance rules has value.Your argument "banning is detrimental" doesn’t quite work, because in the Fediverse you can easily have several accounts.
(DIR) Post #AJlaIcZpBC0ILSBhXE by ArneBab@rollenspiel.social
2022-05-23T22:18:17Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
And I have experienced how an attempted takeover by Neonazis feels. I want my instance-moderators to block those instantly and without remorse.Similar has happened on Mastodon: https://blogghoran.se/2019/07/12/on-mastodon-and-nazis/
(DIR) Post #AJlaIcxvjZHnYDSx6m by tio@social.trom.tf
2022-05-23T22:25:06Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
Look all I'm saying is that instead of using these primitive tools that are nontransparent, and decide for thousands of users, we should be smarter. Think about an adblock like list. Instance admins can have that and let users opt in in their settings or when they create an account. That list will ban all of these "bad" people for the users who choose. This way you dont have to cut ties with any instance, let the users decide. Simple.
(DIR) Post #AJlaIdT7raEv6y3rjU by joeldebruijn@fosstodon.org
2022-05-24T04:46:52Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@tio @ArneBab I can imagine some people having dejavus from Newsnet server messages about mailservers. And the perks of blocking a domain (federation-level) versus blocking a user (individual level).Cant blame Fediverse for introducing moderation at the federation level (next to the individual level).
(DIR) Post #AJlajIlMxG14iEJHA8 by algernon@trunk.mad-scientist.club
2022-05-23T19:54:14Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@tio Why in the name of the fediverse I, the admin, may want to block any other instance when I have so much control over my own!?Because I, as an admin, have an obligation to my users to shield them from harassment. It's far more practical to block an entire instance from federating with mine in any shape or form, than it is to ask my users to do so individually.As an admin, I serve my users. If my users tell me they don't ever want to hear from $X, I'll block it for them.
(DIR) Post #AJlajJO0davOe4O8OG by tio@social.trom.tf
2022-05-23T19:59:58Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
I cannot see how this can end up well. So are you asking all of your users when you ban an instance? How about future users? Do you make sure they understand that your instance cannot communicate with others? And why is it better to put so much weight on 1 human (the admin) when everyone can take care of themselves?
(DIR) Post #AJlajJnB813du8AEca by algernon@trunk.mad-scientist.club
2022-05-23T20:25:08Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@tio I do not ask my users. They ask me, I evaluate, and act accordingly. And yes, they fully understand that our instances will not be able to communicate in the future. That is the desired outcome. There were 0 complains in the past 4 years.And why is it better to put so much weight on 1 human (the admin) when everyone can take care of themselves?Because it is much easier for them if I take care of it. Future users won't even need to.I'll give you an example in the next toot.
(DIR) Post #AJlajK9rlfCp2UmLz6 by algernon@trunk.mad-scientist.club
2022-05-23T20:28:53Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@tio Here's a scenario: my instances are LMBTQ+ friendly. This tends to attract a whole lot of harassers which none of us here want to ever interact with. So we first report the harassment to their instance admins, and if nothing happens, we just ban the whole thing. Problem solved, for all current and future users.If I didn't ban them, each and every one of my users would have to, individually. Me doing it also makes ME the target of any retaliation, and I'm more equipped to handle that.
(DIR) Post #AJlajKYKIiluGMDt6u by algernon@trunk.mad-scientist.club
2022-05-23T20:31:37Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@tio I'm not saying that individuals being able to ban and mute whatever they want is a bad thing. It's great. But the admin being able to help the entire instance is also a good thing.Care must be taken, indeed, blanket bans are a double edged sword. But sometimes it is the right call. Neither my users, nor I ever want to interact with instances full of transphobes or other hateful people. Cutting those off at the admin level is more practical than every user doing it on their own.
(DIR) Post #AJlajKtx0K4LLQL9oe by tio@social.trom.tf
2022-05-23T20:48:22Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
I understand you. However cutting instances seems an extreme approach. You cannot evaluate very well the userbase of those instances or yours. So you end up trying to battle cancer by doing surgery with a kitchen knife. The side effects of this are really concerning to me, simply because it makes admins like you get comfortable with such approaches, and you end up cutting connections between individuals. If this is your instance then I cannot see where iy makes it transparent what instances you have blocked https://trunk.mad-scientist.club/about/more
(DIR) Post #AJlajLErkYncOI7rPs by algernon@trunk.mad-scientist.club
2022-05-23T21:27:08Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@tio Indeed, I cannot fully evaluate it. But if repeated harassers don't get dealt with, that's an instance I do not want to federate with. Any good people on those, can choose an instance that has admins who are willing to act on reports and not just make things worse.If any of my users report that they are in any way inconvenienced with an instance ban, we'll figure something out. None of them did so far.Yep, that's one of my instances, and I intentionally don't make my blocklist public.
(DIR) Post #AJlajLha1nlfpLYnAm by tio@social.trom.tf
2022-05-23T21:52:22Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
This blocking is a blind game. I go on your instance and have no idea that you chose to not connect with other instances, The fediverse is already hard to grasp for most people, nowgo ahead and explain to them that it is not really like you can connect with anyone who has as federated account. It depends where these accounts get created. It is like XMPP server admins cut ties with other XMPP servers, and you have no clue about that.This is a bad practice. Non transparent, confusing, rushed, unnecessary. Let the people take care of themselves and not break the fediverse.
(DIR) Post #AJlajM5gaB3B26q2kK by algernon@trunk.mad-scientist.club
2022-05-23T22:10:26Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@tio I don't think that banning harassers is breaking the fediverse. Anyone who happened to be on a wrong instance by mistake, can easily move elsewhere, they're not tied to any one server, the protocol has a quite reasonable solution for migrating to another server to help with that, too.Banning harassers at the instance level keeps my users happy, and on the fediverse. It makes Fedi a safer, happier place.My users want to enjoy being here, not spend their time blocking. That's what I'm for
(DIR) Post #AJlajMaWjViiZlGfom by joeldebruijn@fosstodon.org
2022-05-24T04:55:15Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@algernon @tio Otherwise (as mentioned by others int his thread) it introduces scaling problems.Les say, there is an instance filled with 50% incels spreading hate.Those other 50% lurking in to that, know what they signed up for.I totally getting the whole instance blocked.Alternative: instances federating on a allow-list basis instead of an block-list of other instances and be transparant about that.
(DIR) Post #AJlajMpPq9d7JwEZ1c by algernon@trunk.mad-scientist.club
2022-05-23T21:30:30Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@tio To phrase it differently, using your metaphor: banning an instance with repeat abusers where admins join in on the "fun" may seem harsh, but I'd rather undergo cancer removal operation (which may have undesirable side effects) than tell my immune system to just work harder (which would end up with me dead).
(DIR) Post #AJllmy5Qs0MDEve3wO by algernon@trunk.mad-scientist.club
2022-05-23T22:07:09Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@tio It's not a blind game. I go to great lengths to research an instance before I block them. I explore other avenues first. My users - past, present and future - know my stance on blocking, they are aware that there are a dozen or two blocked instances. That's part of the onboarding process. This works for us fine, and has saved a lot of trouble for my users.It is necessary, because asking each and every user to block the same stuff is not very practical. They don't want to deal with that.
(DIR) Post #AJllmyZZ3ySakNk7uK by tio@social.trom.tf
2022-05-23T22:10:18Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
Your instance has 7 users from what I see, but for instances larger than say 100 users this is not applicable. And it backfires. Also, why this need to take care of users when they can easily take care of themselves? Same way you do it for them, they can do it for themselves. You see a weird post/user, hover the name and block. Done. So the better and easier tools users have in this regards, the better will be for us all. Admins would not need to take care of these users.For example if we would brainstorm more we could come up with an opt-in feature for users of any instances if they want to let the admins moderate stuff for them. Like an adblock list made by the admins. If I enable that then all of your blocking will protect me too, the user. But if I do not want that, let me see boobs and stuff and connect with anyone on the fediverse.
(DIR) Post #AJllmyzRVlA02dqnFA by algernon@trunk.mad-scientist.club
2022-05-23T22:15:27Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@tio This one does, yes. It's not the only one I run.They technically can take care of themselves, yes. But it's much easier for everyone if they don't have to. Instead of 100+ people blocking the same things, a handful of them reporting to me, and me blocking is much more practical, and has the same net effect.They see a bad post/user? They report. Done. For every single user, not just one.I'm here to help my users, not make them do more work. It's better when they don't even see the bad.
(DIR) Post #AJllmzKiEgAr6bnmOe by algernon@trunk.mad-scientist.club
2022-05-23T22:19:33Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@tio My users are aware of which instances I blocked. The list is publicly not available, but my users can take a look if they want to, and can decide themselves whether that's ok for them or not.And I repeat, this is the crucial point: not seeing a lot of bad in the first place, but still being able to report and/or block at the user level gives a much nicer experience than just the latter.It's like spam filters. Your users can filter their own spam. It works better if you do globally too.
(DIR) Post #AJllmzhOsKK2EyPtlA by tio@social.trom.tf
2022-05-23T22:28:01Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
I am not talking about spam. But blocking instances because some of the users there post things others do not like. I repeat, an adblock-like list with bad actors, for each instance, is a great idea. Let users choose that protection (opt in if possible). Like a filter that users apply themselves. I would hate if Firefox would have an adblocker baked into the browser itself and I could do nothing about it. Let me decide what websites to visit, same way let me decide who to follow and connect with on the fediverse.
(DIR) Post #AJlln09lAt0VevgXxo by algernon@trunk.mad-scientist.club
2022-05-23T22:45:23Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@tio Good thing is: you can do that! And my users who prefer all of this to be handled for them, so they don't have to deal with it, can have it our way.Having both options available is great. If purely user-level blocking works for you, great! It doesn't for many of my users, so I block for them. Everyone wins.The instances I block, my users would block them anyway, so the net effect is the same, and it doesn't break fedi. It just keeps bad actors in their corner. I call that a win.
(DIR) Post #AJlln0Tbz4t2eUyOuG by tio@social.trom.tf
2022-05-23T22:52:27Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
But you didnt get my message. An adblock-like list would be best for all.
(DIR) Post #AJlln0vcIxHw3M4lYe by algernon@trunk.mad-scientist.club
2022-05-24T06:56:59Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@tio Another scenario, which happened just last week: some of my users reported an abuser, I looked into it, blocked that single person on the instance level, so they don't harass others. People from their instance - including their admin - started to dogpile on me a few minutes after. So I blocked them on my account. Then they started to harass random users on my instance, people who never interacted with them before.So I blocked the entire instance to avoid having my users harassed.
(DIR) Post #AJllnbbLxG41nDsbbs by algernon@trunk.mad-scientist.club
2022-05-24T06:59:25Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@tio If I didn't block at the instance level, they would've dogpiled on hundreds of users. It's not reasonable to expect them all to handle the fallout from other users blocking people as users.This is where admins need to step in, and block the abusers hard.
(DIR) Post #AJm1JbuPqUjXKFW0zA by algernon@trunk.mad-scientist.club
2022-05-24T01:14:08Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@tio That'd still require my users to use the list one by one. They don't want to deal with any of that. They delegate the blocking and the backlash that comes with it to me.Having the option to block at an instance level makes this possible. An admin can choose not to use the feature, and defer to users to handle blocks themselves. Users can also ask their admin to do it for them.Both methods have their pros and cons, neither is better than the other, they're suited for different scenarios.
(DIR) Post #AJm1JcFgZPkOODT08e by tio@social.trom.tf
2022-05-24T09:53:06Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
It is far better to have a simple toggle to opt in for the instance's list of banned users/instances. No idea how you do not see that. Maybe because you instance is made of 7 people. Mine has 600. You can't sit down and decide with 600 people. That won't work.
(DIR) Post #AJm1wWTE03kHkgLs6y by tio@social.trom.tf
2022-05-24T09:55:19Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
The same way you easily blocked them, users can easily block them. And there won't be any collateral damages. I have blocked many users too. It is easy. Users have such great control over who can contact them, what they can block, etc..
(DIR) Post #AJm22Nnf9ImYbBhorg by tio@social.trom.tf
2022-05-24T10:01:12Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
If you are bothered about what people fuck, what they believe in, or the color of their skin, then ignore or block them. And if others want to ignore idiots, they can easily block you ofc.
(DIR) Post #AJm2DPO7aKlwi31516 by tio@social.trom.tf
2022-05-24T10:03:17Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
Yes. Why would you want to block other instances when you can only promote whatever you want on your instance?!
(DIR) Post #AJm30rFcmPjtJYcaRM by joeldebruijn@fosstodon.org
2022-05-24T10:12:18Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@tio @ArneBab If the effect is the same, sure.So non-promoted content from other instances dont show in search and accounts dont have access?
(DIR) Post #AJm3IZjidaDyCr97my by tio@social.trom.tf
2022-05-24T10:15:23Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
All of what you see on an instance, including the search, can be curated yes. While at the same time if a user finds otehr peertube channels into the wild and wants to follow them from your own, they can. So you keep it clean, and also not break any connections that users may want to create.
(DIR) Post #AJm3chgKo33adlA2mO by joeldebruijn@fosstodon.org
2022-05-24T10:18:46Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@tio @ArneBab In this model, can individual users from a malicious instance interact with users on my instance?
(DIR) Post #AJm3nIqfTahUo434bI by tio@social.trom.tf
2022-05-24T10:21:03Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
Yes. But your users can defend themselves easily. And we can come up with even better tools to protect against that without the admin deciding for everyone else what is good to follow/interact with.
(DIR) Post #AJm4C4bBaqyrqqcOie by joeldebruijn@fosstodon.org
2022-05-24T10:24:38Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@tio @ArneBab So the earlier upstream discussion in this thread stays the same.And 'only promote what you want' doesnt solve it.
(DIR) Post #AJm5W68fg2BSNEORO4 by tio@social.trom.tf
2022-05-24T10:38:04Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
What does not not solve? If you curate your instance then you won't be flooded on that instance with nonsnese content. On Friendica for examples users can even limit whet they post to only those who follow them and such, so you don't even reach the outside world. Plenty of good tools already to keep admins and users happy. No need for a nuking solution. And more good tools can be invented if people would seek for such a solution rather than the primitive one of nuking other instances at the admin level.
(DIR) Post #AJm6O9PBkTVA8qtRrs by joeldebruijn@fosstodon.org
2022-05-24T10:45:18Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@tio @ArneBab I think every perspective is mentioned earlier so no need for me to repeat them.If users seek a safe-heaven in the form of a partly isolated instance, let them. Same goes for closed forums, closed social media groups in central systems.Federating the system doesnt make this need obsolete all of a sudden.
(DIR) Post #AJm6g2e5cTMyODOVYu by tio@social.trom.tf
2022-05-24T10:53:15Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
But you are missing my point too. Somehow. I didn't say you should not have that. I said this practice, used by so many and for no good reasons, is damaging the fediverse. While at the same time there are better approaches like I mentioned about Peertube. We should be wiser and think further ahead for this fediverse thing, so we don't break it. If a massive instance blocks left and right other instances, and people don't even know that, then it is complete madness and breaks what we call as the fediverse.That's my point: the practice of banning entire instances at the admin level is a very rudimentary and in the long term harmful approach. We have better tools that won't create these side effects.
(DIR) Post #AJm7Q7Q2CkhqVxn7o0 by joeldebruijn@fosstodon.org
2022-05-24T11:01:17Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@tio @ArneBab I think peer-2-peer is more suitable for what you want (censoring is routed around) then federation.Moderating at the federation level is intrinsic to a federation, at least at a technical level. To compensate for that one need governance.Which is hard for loosely coupled federation nodes. When a federation acts as a community its different, but thats not the case.
(DIR) Post #AJm7Szlp69tpf5M2To by algernon@trunk.mad-scientist.club
2022-05-24T11:02:01Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@tio All my users are fine with me blocking. They wouldn't sign up otherwise. So they effectively sign up for the blocklist. Practically the same effect.Whoever comes to my instances, agrees with the blocking. It's right there in the rules of my other servers. They can choose to go elsewhere. If they come to mine, they're fine with the status quo.Maybe because you instance is made of 7 people.Like I said, this is not the only instance I run.
(DIR) Post #AJm8Ao5vrxmiBxeRto by algernon@trunk.mad-scientist.club
2022-05-24T11:08:28Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@tio You still don't get it. My users do not want to deal with it. They could, they choose not to. They come to my instance, because I deal with blocking, and the fallout.No matter how easy it is to press a button, it has other consequences (see my dogpiling example earlier), possibly for other users too. They don't want to deal with that.If I had an opt-in adblock, every user of mine would subscribe. So it's effectively an instance-wide block. Why bother with the extra steps then?
(DIR) Post #AJm8IY7d8gLmyE8aBc by algernon@trunk.mad-scientist.club
2022-05-24T11:11:25Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@tio An adblock-like list many subscribe to does not prevent collateral damage. Those who subscribe to it, will end up blocking people and servers the same way an instance-wide block would.All such a list accomplishes is some people not using them, at the cost of forcing everyone else into an extra step to opt into it.Collateral damage will still be there. More burden on the users, too, and a larger attack surface. No thanks, we'll go with instance blocks, they're more practical for us.
(DIR) Post #AJm8roQKWQBvfFhNpI by algernon@trunk.mad-scientist.club
2022-05-24T11:15:15Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@tio To reiterate: instance-wide blocks aren't the be-all, end-all solution. They don't work for every server, or every user, either. But they do work for a fair number of servers & users, usually on top of user-level blocking.Same goes for user-level blocking.Both have their pros and cons, both have their place. Neither is inherently better than the other, because they're better for different scenarios. Having them both gives us the flexibility to set things up as we wish.
(DIR) Post #AJm8s87DJCmejkuOo4 by tio@social.trom.tf
2022-05-24T11:17:06Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
Yes p2p seems to be the best approach, but this doesn't mean we should break the fediverse for no good reason. I have several instances and I see no reason in blocking the connection to other instances.
(DIR) Post #AJm945Ai4wrz5BF9dI by tio@social.trom.tf
2022-05-24T11:19:17Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
But the practice of opting in for an adblock list like thing, is a better practice overall.
(DIR) Post #AJm9PnLv0jbaBiq6yW by joeldebruijn@fosstodon.org
2022-05-24T11:23:13Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@tio @ArneBabBreaking things for no good reason is never advisable.If breaking is 'by design' I acknowledge the existence of good reasons.
(DIR) Post #AJmB0joNEt59sHKRwO by tio@social.trom.tf
2022-05-24T11:41:54Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
An adblock-like list many subscribe to does not prevent collateral damage. Those who subscribe to it, will end up blocking people and servers the same way an instance-wide block would.They will, not you. That's better for whoever wants that.All such a list accomplishes is some people not using them, at the cost of forcing everyone else into an extra step to opt into it.Then make it opt-out. So much easier. No need for you to manage their lives.
(DIR) Post #AKFC4MzlsFAuJoQLiK by Sandra@idiomdrottning.org
2022-06-07T11:38:52.926485Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
Even coming from the more block&ban-happy perspective, as I am, I agree with this approach. You can still nuke the worst of the worst, while keep your trending etc clean from grey area iffy stuff. On my Fedi instance (currently running a Pleroma fork) I ended up trying to disable the entire homepage for non-logged-in users.🤷🏻♀️
(DIR) Post #AQnlHuDk0lzGWlvgJM by joeldebruijn@fosstodon.org
2022-12-20T14:57:41Z
2 likes, 1 repeats
@algernon @tio Since this thread I do see examples where blocking seems extreme:This rather polite conversation starting here:https://gladtech.social/@Are0h@ubiqueros.com/109513894286320148Let to this respons and below:https://gladtech.social/@vesperto/109517746032804062Which let to an instance block:https://ubiqueros.com/notes/98z37fr0mw