Hey admins, remember when the used to federate? Please don't break the . Leave the blocking to the users.

ยท Web ยท 5 ยท 21 ยท 30

@juliobiason Yes even Gab. If the end users don't like it they are perfectly capable of muting the domain. If people wanted admins taking away their choices they'd go back to Facebook and Twitter.

> If people wanted admins taking away their choices, they'd go back to Facebook and Twitter

May be true for some users, but others (like me) don't want to do all the blocking and are looking for an instance that maintains a blocklist for them. We have the choice to choose an instance that doesn't block at all, or blocks on a level we are fine with.

@tofuwabohu I suppose I would be okay with something like this if it was a small instance and there was a general consensus among the users about which instances to not federate with but on an instance of the size you're on I doubt that's the case.

@terryenglish I believe there have been some polls once when gab came up and there was some kind of consensus.

If users were so keen on blocking themselves, they would mass emigrate to instances without or with minor block lists. But that doesn't happen. At least in my bubble people prefer to join an instance with active moderation, including blocking certain instances. I've even witnessed some migrations specifically for that reason.

I see your point but I don't agree it's "what users want".

@tofuwabohu That's partially why I think it's important to change hearts and minds. Once this place starts to fail to deliver on what it promises it will forever be condemned to irrelevance.

@pounce My instance is just fine. As far as I know the administrators haven't de-federated due to being butt hurt or having their feeling hurt.

@terryenglish other instances defederate with because it's crap
if you have a problem with that move to a less shitty instance

@terryenglish yeah,
they cloned mastodon. changed the logo. charged for it and removed the report feature.

purism is a company that leeches off of free software projects. All they've done here is copied code other people have worked hard to make, and decided to sell it while taking zero responsibility for moderating the server.
If you can't see why people wouldn't want to deal with that i can't help you.


A) They don't charge for the mastodon or chat portion of their Librem One subscription.

B) Isn't mastodon itself a fork GNU Social?

C) They do moderate and handle reports as I myself have been reported before (a report made in bad faith)

@terryenglish i think forks are perfectly healthy
i've maintained forks of projects before and i have a few more planned.
I don't think mastodon is a fork, but even if it were it's a separate project with its own features and use case from gnu social. doesn't seem to me like a fork that adds very much like other instances i've seen.
In my experience whenever purism forks software it just changes some logos and then leaves it unmaintained and without security patches.

That being said, I know most servers defederated from due to the reports being removed. If they've changed that, then servers might lift the ban. Just email an admin and tell them that purism will actually handle reports now and they might federate with you again.

@pounce I will need to confirm. It's possible that they originally were going to moderate but then have since dropped doing it. It was probably close to two years ago since I was reported.

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Librem Social

Librem Social is an opt-in public network. Messages are shared under Creative Commons BY-SA 4.0 license terms. Policy.

Stay safe. Please abide by our code of conduct.

(Source code)

image/svg+xml Librem Chat image/svg+xml