Whoever this @r000t person is, he's a perfect example of how white folks perform being a proponent of safety and choice, but will always leave a door open for hateful bigots to perpetuate their rage.
And like I've been saying all day, you can't have it both ways.
You can't say you're an advocate for safety and then turn around and get validation from the most notorious bigots on the web.
You're just a fraud that is too much of a coward to be what you are.
And yes, we see you.
@fireglow
That was my guess.
I genuinely feel bad, because I want Mastodon to succeed *in spite of assholes*
I just think we're gonna have a much easier time getting to "1 negative interaction before blocking" than "negative interactions never ever happen"
My software solution idea, which should also help small instance owners like him, is something similar to MCBans' old system. More on this later.
@fireglow @terryenglish
In short, people sign up to a federated block provider.
Your instance asks the provider how many other instances (on the provider) have blocked a particular user or remote instance. If it's above a threshold you set, it's as good as blocked.
This also means you don't gotta sink time into just maintaining block lists. It's one click herd immunity.
I want everyone happy. But I'm also an engineer.
@r000t @fireglow I don't know if I like the idea of an automatic block list as a general rule. I certainly don't think that blocking should be done at the instance level. Users can decide for themselves what to block. Some are only on social media to feed their narcissism like our friend who rage quit and the only solution for those people is to get out into the real world.
What I was going to say:
I certainly would never deploy or use such a system. Strongly worded, but let me explain:
A system that takes these VERY IMPORTANT choices out of the users hands is pure evil.
At best I could imagine something like "Here's some instance blocks we think you'd enjoy".
But in all honesty, I think such a system is an ideal tool for people to a) abuse, and b) unwary ones to shoot themselves in the foot with.
Automatic censorship is something very dangerous, I believe.
People should have the opportunity to be able to change their minds the very next day. A instance blocklist, hidden ten clicks away in settings, hinders that greatly.
I think technology should only ever be used to connect people, not wall them off.
Just my two cents.
Oh boy, here's where I piss off the other side and have nobody to talk to :(
In the past 5 years, I've learned that some users want choices abstracted from them. That, of itself, is their choice.
It's why I think the list of "global" blocks for an instance should be public. It's one of the things you compare when you "shop" for a place to make your Mastodon account.
If Joe Blow wants their feed curated, more power to them.
@terryenglish @fireglow
And an instance admin suddenly going haywire, or selling out, or becoming ill, or any number of things
We need to be able to "Takeout" out entire accounts, and import them elsewhere. Right now you can do it with some lists, but certainly not your toots.
As it is, I meant to release my "Mastoleum" static-host for archives like two fucking weeks ago.