1
How to block Threads on Mastodon
(privacy.thenexus.today)
Thanks very much, fixed now!
Correct. Dorsey's early involvement is certainly grounds for concern -- the way I think of it, he's gone now but his stench lingers on -- but he's not influential there going forward.
Interesting, my first reaction is that I also wouldn't have expected it but as you say there's a lot of room in the Fediverse. In Seven Theses On The Fediverse And The Becoming Of Floss, Aymeric Mansoux and Roel Roscam Abbing talk about the Fediverse as "a site for online agonistic pluralism", and this is a good example - radically different views coexisting.
There's a bit more on Mastodon then Lemmy - https://docs.joinmastodon.org/user/moving/#migration has the details. But not being able to move posts is a big limitation. And even the functionality that's implemented has some unpleasant surprises -- see https://erinkissane.com/notes-from-a-mastodon-migration
Yep, very similar dynamics.
Thanks, it's a great example, and good to hear they got banned quickly! It's a great point that when moderators are proactive most people don't see the posts so think there's less racism than there actually is.
Good point, thanks. I seem to recall another one as well -- although both were widely defederated so I suspect most people on those instances didn't wind up seeing them.
Thanks much for the detailed response! And thanks @[email protected] for the detailed response as well.
Thanks, glad you think they're reasonable. I don't see it as using ActivitiyPub implying consent; it's more that ActivityPub doesn't provide any mechanisms to enforce consent. So mechanisms like domain blocking, "authorized fetch", and local-only posts are all built on top of ActivityPub. I agree that many people want something different than ActivityPub currently provides, it'll be interesting to see how much the protocol evolves, how far people can go with the approach of building on top of the protocol, or whether there's shift over time to a different protocol which has more to say about safety, security, privacy, and consent.
Thanks for the feedback -- and thanks for reading them despite the bristling. I couldn't come up with a better way to put them ... I know they'll cause some people to tune out, but oh well, what can you do.
I don't think these solutions are inherently unscalable, it's more that there hasn't ever been a lot of effort put into figuring out how to make things scalable so we don't have any great suggestions yet. I wrote about this some in The free fediverses should focus on consent (including consent-based federation), privacy, and safety (the article is focused on instances that don't federate with Threads, but much of it including this section is true more generally):
There aren't yet a lot of good tools to make consent-based federation convenient scalable, but that's starting to change. Instance catalogs like The Bad Space and Fediseer, and emerging projects like the FIRES recommendation system. FSEP's design for an"approve followers" tool, could also easily be adapted for approving federation requests. ActivityPub spec co-author Erin Shepherd's suggestion of "letters of introduction", or something along the lines of the IndieWeb Vouch protocol, could also work well at the federation level. Db0's Can we improve the Fediverse Allow-List Model? and the the "fedifams" and caracoles I discuss in The free fediverses should support concentric federations of instances could help with scalability and making it easier for new instances to plug into a consent-based network.
(The post itself has links for most of these.)
26
1
Supporters of anti-LGBTQ+ KOSA bill say they have 60 votes in the Senate (US focused)
(www.washingtonpost.com)
Fediblockhole does something along those lines for on Mastodon ... not sure if there's an equivlaent in the Lemmy world.
Yeah, it's a great name.