357
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 14 Dec 2023
357 points (96.1% liked)
Fediverse
28748 readers
94 users here now
A community to talk about the Fediverse and all it's related services using ActivityPub (Mastodon, Lemmy, KBin, etc).
If you wanted to get help with moderating your own community then head over to !moderators@lemmy.world!
Rules
- Posts must be on topic.
- Be respectful of others.
- Cite the sources used for graphs and other statistics.
- Follow the general Lemmy.world rules.
Learn more at these websites: Join The Fediverse Wiki, Fediverse.info, Wikipedia Page, The Federation Info (Stats), FediDB (Stats), Sub Rehab (Reddit Migration), Search Lemmy
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Mastodon users can already block entire domains. Unless it's legally required, there's hardly a reason why the admins would need to take the decision away from the users.
The whole point is that instance owners/admin are allowed to run their instance however they want
Absolutely. My comment wasn't about mandating an all open policy to all instance admins. Just saying that they don't have to make such decisions for their users. It's different on Lemmy where per user instance blocking will only come in the next release, so for now Lemmy admins kinda have to make such decisions on the behalf of users as well.
I agree. Everyone should be able to decide for themselves. My only concern is that Fediverse servers will suddenly become expensive to host because of the Threads traffic. But this would also happen with many users on many smaller instances and is not specific to Threads.
Servers pull content based on subscriptions (follows). Meta can't push content into the Fediverse.
No ActivityPub is explicitly push-based. If you follow someone on a remote server, the remote server pushes their posts to your server. Meta can push content into the fediverse, but like any other user/server they can be blocked if its spammy
I think we're talking about two different things. I'm saying that servers ultimately choose what they receive. People worry that Meta will flood Mastodon with unwanted content but content has to be invited in. Although it's more accurate to say that users have to be invited in, like vampires, to serve content. People seem worried that federating means inviting in all the vampires.
When users on server A follow a single user on server B, it doesn't matter if server B has one user or ten billion, server A receives content from one user. The only way to receive all content from a server is to have at least one person following every user on the remote server.
So Meta can't flood Mastodon with unwanted content because you only receive content from users you explicitly ask to receive it from. You aren't connected to the firehose when you federate with their instance.
I think the point is too many users following threads users as is it more likely to find a friend there than on Fediverse for example. Which will require more compute resources and storage
Same with kbin users
Admins host, users don't. It's not the users' decision.
If the admin decides not to block them it's the users' decision. And users can choose not to use instances who block Threads.