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.
@fireglow
Thanks bro.
I want everyone happy. The problem with that goal is that people on either extreme feel the other doesn't have a right to be happy, and left to themselves.
@terryenglish
@terryenglish @fireglow
My problem is that the *latest* person to give their opinion on me is always assumed to be correct.
That's one hell of a bug.