• Nix@merv.news
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    8 months ago

    ? You can block the entire nazi server and you will essentially be defederates from it without relying on your servers admins to do it. This makes it easier to block nazis?

    • SorteKanin@feddit.dk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      8 months ago

      So every new user needs to block all the nazi servers themselves before they get a non-nazi feed?

      The whole point of joining a server that defederates nasty stuff for you is that you delegate that responsibility to someone you trust to handle moderation for you. Just like you trust community mods or the admins of your instance on Lemmy.

      • cassie 🐺@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        8 months ago

        To be fair, Bluesky does have “blocklists” maintained by other users that you can opt into, and quite a few popular ones exist with active maintainers who take and act on reports pretty quickly. So you still can delegate moderation responsibilities. One advantage to this is that you can opt into a few blocklists based on what you personally want to block - separate lists exist for hateful bigots, crypto pushers, and so on. I gave it a shot out of curiosity and haven’t run into any issues yet, but that’s just me.

        I still prefer Mastodon for broader AP integration, and I think blocklists aren’t discoverable enough outside of word of mouth, but I am curious to see how that turns out for Bluesky. Certainly an improvement over Xitter imo.

        • SorteKanin@feddit.dk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          8 months ago

          That still requires the user to do something actively to get a moderated feed. Most users don’t want to deal with that.

          • Plopp@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            8 months ago

            But on Mastodon the user has to dig through a bunch of instances to find one that filters out what they don’t want to see, and figure out if it’s an instance worth joining for other reasons. I’d argue there’s probably more work to join Mastodon than to join Bluesky and filter your feed. But I don’t use Bluesky so I don’t know.

          • ArghZombies@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            8 months ago

            This is pretty standard online though - even regular Google has settings like “Safe Search:On” that you can toggle to moderate your search results.

            It really just depends on what the default settings are when you arrive at a service before you start using it, and how obvious and discoverable you make those settings controls.

      • Nix@merv.news
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        Servers will likely be able to have recommended block lists and default block lists you can opt out of. Federation was literally just announced i think its fair to give it time for them to improve it. I think users having the option is better look at cases like mastodon.art that defederates from servers constantly and none of the users ever know who or why theyre defederating

        • SorteKanin@feddit.dk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          8 months ago

          Most users don’t want to care about moderation like that. Users may care to block stuff they’re not interested in like “I’m not interested in soccer so I’ll block the soccer server/community”. Most users don’t want to even think about seeing the kind of content most reasonable ActivityPub servers defederate from. There’s also often a legal risk if you don’t defederate as what constitute legal content depends on a servers location.

          look at cases like mastodon.art that defederates from servers constantly and none of the users ever know who or why theyre defederating

          If users don’t like servers that indiscriminately defederates from others, they are free to go to other servers. This is not a bug, this is a feature.

          • Nix@merv.news
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            12
            ·
            8 months ago

            Idk what to tell you. If you prefer how it is on activitypub then use activitypub. I barely ever use bluesky and mainly use lemmy snd mastodon. I think having no say in who you’re defedersted from sucks. Its why lemmy lets users block a server now even though mastodon doesnt. This is good.

            Lol “just leave the art server” is terrible for artists and also 90% of people have no idea what defederating is and wont ever know theyre defederated from X server. I think its way better for servers to set their default blocklists that block the server they dont like and users to be able to choose to opt out of them, add more blocklists, etc.

            • Piece_Maker@feddit.uk
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              7
              ·
              8 months ago

              Its why lemmy lets users block a server now even though mastodon doesnt.

              As someone who had to switch away from mastodon.art because my pool of federated instances was getting so small it felt pointless to be on a federated platform… I’m SO glad Lemmy takes this approach. I don’t mind my instance having some control over who they federate with (I have zero interest in seeing actual nazi comment or CP for example) but if my instance blocked lemmy.world or another similarly large one I’d definitely be a bit screwed (mastodon.art defederated mastodon.social for a time!)

    • aeharding@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      8 months ago

      without relying on your servers admins to do it

      But I want to rely on my server admins for that. To me that’s a feature, not a bug.

      • micka190@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        8 months ago

        We had a thing a while back on Lemmy where a bunch of semi-popular instances (including lemmy.world, though they seem to have rolled that back) all defederated from instances that mentioned piracy. I don’t have a problem with piracy. I want to talk about piracy.

        If Lemmy ran on a system like Bluesky’s, I wouldn’t have needed to consider making a new account on another instance just because me and the admins disagree on what we want to see on Lemmy.

        I get your point, I just think It’s a matter of preference, at the end of the day.

        • aeharding@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          8 months ago

          We had a thing a while back on Lemmy where a bunch of semi-popular instances (including lemmy.world, though they seem to have rolled that back) all defederated from instances that mentioned piracy. I don’t have a problem with piracy. I want to talk about piracy.

          To me, that is a feature, too. The admin team made a decision, and the community engaged, the topic was discussed, and the decision was changed. To me that’s a very healthy process. The only thing I would’ve changed would be LW engaging the community before defederating, but they were understandably worried about legal implications.

          Even if LW didn’t reverse this decision, you can change instances. Lemmy 0.19 makes this easier with import/export, but I would argue it should be even easier. Ultimately though this is a lemmy implementation detail, and not an activitypub problem.

          • masterspace@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            8 months ago

            Your ignoring the thrust of their point:

            If you disagree with your instance or want to leave it for whatever reason, you have to wipe your identity and create a new one.

            That is in no way a feature, just a hindrance.

              • masterspace@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                8 months ago

                Lemmy doesn’t, since it’s not part of the protocol, and in both situations you still lose your actual id.

                In general, there’s technical reasons why ids and instances are associated on Lemmy / Mastodon, but not UX reasons.

                99% of users just want a username, i.e. @bigCommieMouth, they don’t necessarily want their identity tied together with the server they use to interact with the network, i.e. @bigCommieMouth@kolektiva.social, and if they did really love a specific server and wanted their identity tied to it, they could always just make @bigCommieMouth_kolektiva_social.

                • HACKthePRISONS@kolektiva.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  8 months ago

                  >there’s technical reasons why ids and instances are associated on Lemmy / Mastodon, but not UX reasons.

                  …right…

                  >99% of users just want a username,

                  literally 100% of users have used this system regardless of the fact that identities are tied to services.

                  • masterspace@lemmy.ca
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    8 months ago

                    So? 100% of users never used the fediverse before it existed. Bluesky / ATProtocol is now offering an alternative where usernames are not tied to instances, and that sounds like a better UX.

    • Heresy_generator@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      8 months ago

      Can you block entire servers, though? Do you have the ability to even tell content apart based on server of origin? It’s not clear that you can and the implication seems to be that the only thing you get out of hosting your own server is hosting your own data; it doesn’t seem to offer you any sort of control over federation.

      • Nix@merv.news
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        8 months ago

        You can make and share custom feeds based on XYZ parameters and you can make and share block lists so I think its fair to assume you can make and share a blocklist that is “block everyone from X server”. Federation was literally just announced so i think its fair all of the features havent been completed

    • Clot@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      users can do that already on fediverse…? Additionally admins have power to block servers they wish, that gives much control and is a lot better, dont see the advantage bluesky is pretending to have.