> - Pointless debates about whether it’s OK to federate with instances that host pirated content, disagreeable politics, furry VNs, etc., which everyone has to take a side (the correct side) on

Why do you have to take a side / take the correct side? Can't you either just not take any side or take whatever side you feel like and go with that?

▲

miki123211 an hour ago | parent | next [-]

On Mastodon, if you take the wrong side, those on the correct side will defederate from you. Not merely because you host (or don't host) the content they like (or dislike), but because you merely enable (or discriminate against) those who host that content.

Of course, all sides are wrong in somebody's eyes; so no matter what you do, you will be defederated from by at least somebody.

The way Mastodon works, defederation irreversibly breaks all follow relationships, without notifying those involved. If you disagree with the decision, you can migrate to another server, but you won't get your followers / followees back, not without everybody involved doing a lot of manual drudge work. This is just one way in which the myth of "users are free to do what they wish, if they disagree with the admins, they can migrate somewhere else" breaks.

To make matters worse, there's no way to see which users that you may wish to follow are / will be hidden from you if you choose a given instance. Defederation lists are a (somewhat open) secret; it's good practice to announce defederations, but there's no automated API endpoint to see them, so there's no way to answer the question of "who am I going to lose if I migrate from x to y."

▲

embedding-shape an hour ago | parent | next [-]

> On Mastodon, if you take the wrong side, those on the correct side will defederate from you. Not merely because you host (or don't host) the content they like (or dislike), but because you merely enable (or discriminate against) those who host that content.

Ok, so? People block you all the time because they don't agree with you, why is that a problem? If people don't want to hear what you say, shouldn't they be allowed to not listen?

Personally, I don't understand that point of view of blocking people who you disagree with, for me the point of the internet is to find different views and perspectives, but I'm also fine with others filtering out whatever I say, doesn't really impact me either way.

If you want no rules what you say, run your own instance. Depending on what you say, some people will want to listen, others will want to filter your opinion away, I don't think either sides are "wrong" for that, it's just like in real life. If you want to use someone else's instance, you follow their rules. It mostly isn't harder than this.

▲

miki123211 an hour ago | parent [-]

No, because this happens on a per-admin level, not on a per-user level.

You go on a cruise for two weeks and there's a disagreement about whether to federate with Meta or not. Your admin takes a side, whatever that side might be. Two weeks later, you come back and lose 10% of followers, and there's nothing you can do about it.

▲

embedding-shape an hour ago | parent [-]

Yeah, that kind of makes sense to me, you chose that instance because you're OK with that admin making choices for you. Just like how I choose to post comments on HN, and if the admins/moderators tell me to stop something, or that now half my comments are gone for reason X, I can't really cry about it, all I can do is follow what admins do/say or jump ship.

▲

Terr_ 35 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

So... basically the bad problem everybody was intending to solve in the first place?

	▲	embedding-shape 22 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		As far as I know, Mastodon didn't really set out to solve that particular problem. But it does seem like ATProto did, as it seems a lot easier to move around in ATProto than Mastodon (and ActivityPub in general).

▲

bigbadfeline 18 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

> you chose that instance because you're OK with that admin making choices for you

Nobody chooses instances for that, very few know anything about the admin, people just like the content until... in >70% of cases, bait and switch follows

That's why Mastodon is such an incredible mess, it creates the conditions for serious problems, then goes: "you chose what you knew nothing about, nor there's any way to know anything, therefore... you are the problem.

▲

fc417fc802 an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

> there's no way to answer the question of "who am I going to lose if I migrate from x to y."

Ahckchually, once you create an account you can use the API endpoint for remote lookup to test in an automated manner which nodes are and aren't reachable.

▲

throw_a_grenade an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

They'll then defederate also from you. The argument goes, you're a nazi/facist/racist/*phobe, because you associate with (== did not defederate from) the designated nazi/facist/racist/*phobe.

Yes, it's that toxic. Go subscribe #FediBlock hashtag if you don't believe me.

▲

embedding-shape an hour ago | parent [-]

Ok, so what? Let those people block you then, sounds like people you probably don't want to interact with anyways?

I've seen that, and I'm not sure what's supposed to be toxic. It's community-organized filtering of unwanted views, for the people who want to engage in that. I don't agree with that, so I don't participate or do that myself, and I also don't seem to face any negative consequences because I'm not participating in that. What am I supposed to be sad about here, that some people don't want to listen to my views?

	▲	fc417fc802 39 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Witch hunts and guilt by association are generally seen as toxic. If you disagree with that I'm not really sure what to say as it's a rather fundamental principle from my perspective. > sounds like people you probably don't want to interact with anyways? That's all well and good when it's a single user instance or small group of friends. But often enough it will be a much larger one with unknowing participants caught up in it. Blaming them for choosing the "wrong" instance is about as productive as blaming people for using facebook - technically correct but that's about it. That said, the AP model seems like the least worst to me. Every option I'm aware of has significant downsides.
	▲	supern0va an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		>Ok, so what? Let those people block you then, sounds like people you probably don't want to interact with anyways? The problem is when this is a large server with people you know using it. They suddenly disappear from your feed. And those people may not have even agreed with the reason for defederation. At that point, the only way to connect with your friend(s) is for you or them to find new servers that haven't (yet) gotten into a defederation slap fight. The TL;DR of the problem with Mastodon is that you basically need to pin your identity to what is essentially a small internet community/forum and then give them full power to decide who/what you can consume while your identity is tagged to their community.