Is that really a problem? It’s not trying to “control” anything. It’s a voluntary pact meant to conserve the non-corporate fediverse, as it is right now.
The beauty of the fediverse is that you can choose your experience based on the instance you join
This is never going to change. If you just don’t like the intent behind the fedipact, no problem - the majority of the fediverse will be talking with threads. You get the personal choice of which instances you make accounts on. Hell, you can make your own instance.
I don’t know exactly what the fedipact is, but I know of a collection of instances with arbitrary mods without accountability who have sworn to collectively create a block list and block instances based on what opinions those instances allow etc. Instances can even be blocked for not blocking another instance. I see that as a problem for the fediverse because it can grow and create an unnecessary rift of the verse.
Also, yes it’s great that you can chose instance and jump wherever you want, but an even better thing would be to put more emphasis on user controlled blocks. We can ourselves block instances from our feeds and we should make that the norm (and perhaps make those blocks more powerful and configurable if need be), and have the instances focus more on blocking straight up illegal things.
Why would the instance maintainers have to deal with it if the norm is that the users block the individuals and instances they want no part of? You see shitty content - block the source, either the user or instance. There could be a feature where an instance blocks something if a certain percentage of its users block it.
the norm is that the users block the individuals and instances they want no part of?
“Yeah, just block every bigot in existance and you will achieve a somewhat good experience”
Spammers also exist, and they can go long ways to avoid blocking by e.g. creating many accounts. There are people out there who could do this just to troll and harass a single user. If you’re fine with blocking every piece of shit there are - good for you. But it doesn’t mean it should be a norm.
This isn’t rocket science. First, let instance maintainers handle bigots, spammers etc. on their own instance. If you still find that instance contributing with too much crap in your feed - block those users or the entire instance. I’ve blocked several accounts and a couple of instances. It’s very easy to do.
And again, there could be a number of tools and features created to help users block stuff. Use your imagination. A user with an orange warning triangle is harassing you? Well that triangle means that user is in one or more block lists for problematic behavior - do you want to use any of those block lists? Click a button. Or whatever. Just let the users decide and prevent instances from creating a cascading instance-blocking that puts the fediverse at risk.
If you want a place where admins are not allowed to block communities and instead leave moderation of all but the most egregious, illegal content, up to individuals, there are places like that already in X and Threads.
This is the fediverse, where admins are expected to look after their members. If they don’t, the members will leave. I don’t want to block every toxic user or instance on my own - I already spend too much time blocking normies from lemmy.world.
Let me know how I can curate my feed by blocking whole instances over at X et al.
Also let me know where the fediverse defines “looking after” the same way you do. And I reiterate, use your imagination as to what tools could be made available to make blocking easier and more efficient for the users.
Maybe you should block lemmy.world if you have such issues with normies. It’s also fascinating that you consider “normies” something to be blocked, and it hints at the problem I’m talking about. I’ve seen many users (but still a very small minority) on Mastodon having similar attitudes where they just want to block everyone that doesn’t agree with every single opinion they hold, and preferably at the instance level, and even block instances that doesn’t block those instances. That is problematic both for the fediverse itself, for the people who put themselves in those artificial filter bubbles, and for the people outside of their filter bubble who don’t get to take part of their opinions.
“looking after” is defined on a case by case basis, by instance admins. Anyway, I’m sorry about my normie comment. I don’t mean to sound so intolerant, so I can’t blame you from extrapolating. But I’m very on board with admins blocking entire instances if they’ve shown to have inadequate moderation. For everything else, there’s ⛔
It was a rhetorical question, since X doesn’t have instances. But it’s good to see that people over there have access to block lists on a user level. Fedi should have that too, or something similar.
Whats your opinion on an instance blocking another instance simply for not blocking a third instance?
Is that really a problem? It’s not trying to “control” anything. It’s a voluntary pact meant to conserve the non-corporate fediverse, as it is right now.
This is never going to change. If you just don’t like the intent behind the fedipact, no problem - the majority of the fediverse will be talking with threads. You get the personal choice of which instances you make accounts on. Hell, you can make your own instance.
There is no problem here.
I don’t know exactly what the fedipact is, but I know of a collection of instances with arbitrary mods without accountability who have sworn to collectively create a block list and block instances based on what opinions those instances allow etc. Instances can even be blocked for not blocking another instance. I see that as a problem for the fediverse because it can grow and create an unnecessary rift of the verse.
Also, yes it’s great that you can chose instance and jump wherever you want, but an even better thing would be to put more emphasis on user controlled blocks. We can ourselves block instances from our feeds and we should make that the norm (and perhaps make those blocks more powerful and configurable if need be), and have the instances focus more on blocking straight up illegal things.
And force your instance maintainers to deal with the amount of bigoted content they won’t be able to moderate? There’s already a huge amount of stuff any other instance would be blocked with no hesitation.
Why would the instance maintainers have to deal with it if the norm is that the users block the individuals and instances they want no part of? You see shitty content - block the source, either the user or instance. There could be a feature where an instance blocks something if a certain percentage of its users block it.
“Yeah, just block every bigot in existance and you will achieve a somewhat good experience”
Spammers also exist, and they can go long ways to avoid blocking by e.g. creating many accounts. There are people out there who could do this just to troll and harass a single user. If you’re fine with blocking every piece of shit there are - good for you. But it doesn’t mean it should be a norm.
This isn’t rocket science. First, let instance maintainers handle bigots, spammers etc. on their own instance. If you still find that instance contributing with too much crap in your feed - block those users or the entire instance. I’ve blocked several accounts and a couple of instances. It’s very easy to do.
And again, there could be a number of tools and features created to help users block stuff. Use your imagination. A user with an orange warning triangle is harassing you? Well that triangle means that user is in one or more block lists for problematic behavior - do you want to use any of those block lists? Click a button. Or whatever. Just let the users decide and prevent instances from creating a cascading instance-blocking that puts the fediverse at risk.
If you want a place where admins are not allowed to block communities and instead leave moderation of all but the most egregious, illegal content, up to individuals, there are places like that already in X and Threads.
This is the fediverse, where admins are expected to look after their members. If they don’t, the members will leave. I don’t want to block every toxic user or instance on my own - I already spend too much time blocking normies from lemmy.world.
Let me know how I can curate my feed by blocking whole instances over at X et al.
Also let me know where the fediverse defines “looking after” the same way you do. And I reiterate, use your imagination as to what tools could be made available to make blocking easier and more efficient for the users.
Maybe you should block lemmy.world if you have such issues with normies. It’s also fascinating that you consider “normies” something to be blocked, and it hints at the problem I’m talking about. I’ve seen many users (but still a very small minority) on Mastodon having similar attitudes where they just want to block everyone that doesn’t agree with every single opinion they hold, and preferably at the instance level, and even block instances that doesn’t block those instances. That is problematic both for the fediverse itself, for the people who put themselves in those artificial filter bubbles, and for the people outside of their filter bubble who don’t get to take part of their opinions.
Block lists https://auxmode.com/support-knowledge-base/advanced-options-for-using-block-twitter/
“looking after” is defined on a case by case basis, by instance admins. Anyway, I’m sorry about my normie comment. I don’t mean to sound so intolerant, so I can’t blame you from extrapolating. But I’m very on board with admins blocking entire instances if they’ve shown to have inadequate moderation. For everything else, there’s ⛔
It was a rhetorical question, since X doesn’t have instances. But it’s good to see that people over there have access to block lists on a user level. Fedi should have that too, or something similar.
Whats your opinion on an instance blocking another instance simply for not blocking a third instance?