226
41% of fediverse instances have blocked threads so far!!! (tech.lgbt)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/fediverse@lemmy.ml
52 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 8 points 2 years ago (1 child)

How do we as users go about blocking them? Can we yet? Or do we have to wait for v .19?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 10 points 2 years ago* (2 children)

    Pre-0.19 I assume you would need to be on an instance that is blocking them.

    Post-0.19 you can block them as an instance, meaning "any posts from communities which are hosted on that instance are hidden"

    So, the answer still varies depending on your goals for blocking.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 12 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    yes, on Mastodon when a user block an instance, it's more like a mute than a block. Your posts will still be available to them, but you won't see their content.

    The only solution if you want to protect your content from being shared on an instance is to block it at the instance level AND that the instance use Authorised Fetch.

    Not all instances have this feature on.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Isn’t “protecting content” on a public platform kinda moot?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Indeed, it's downright incoherent on a protocol like ActivityPub. The whole point of a system like this is to let content spread around. This isn't supposed to be a walled garden, with all sorts of terms and conditions and DRM and whatnot. When you make a post and click "send" you're announcing that content to the whole world. Even to parts of the world that you may not like.

    It's ironic that many of us came to the Fediverse because Reddit tried exactly this sort of nonsense.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    I came to the fediverse in 2017, so nothing to do with reddit or meta or twitter.

    The fact is here, we have a choice. So you do you.

    On mastodon I have an account on an instance that blocked meta and is using authorised fetch (so the proper way to block a domain) : great, my content won't go there or on any other blocked domains : it's my choice.

    I have another account on another instance that didn't blocked meta : great, my content will be shared with threads users and I will be able to browse threads.

    Choice, isn't it great?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    I said many of us. I know there were people here already when Reddit had its meltdown.

    I have no problem with individual instances federating or defederating with whomever they want. The problem is that there's a movement afoot to try to get everyone to defederate with Meta. That's what the "FediPact" is about, and this thread is about the FediPact. So I argue against that. If everyone defederates then there goes that choice you're fond of.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child)

    where did you see that the fedipact main purpose was to impose defederation? that would be rich.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    https://fedipact.online/ reads:

    "i am an instance admin/mod on the fediverse. by signing this pact, i hereby agree to block any instances owned by meta should they pop up on the fediverse. project92 is a real and serious threat to the health and longevity of fedi and must be fought back against at every possible opportunity"

    What goal do you think a pact like that has? Do you not think they want everyone else on board? Don't waffle with some "will no one rid me of this troublesome priest" sophistry. They want Meta locked out.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    Yes and that’s their right.

    But thankfully they don’t impose anything to anyone. You had me worried for a minute.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago

    Indeed, one of the great benefits of an open protocol like ActivityPub is that it's impossible to force stuff like this. So ironically, they're going to fail to impose their desired outcome for the same reason that they don't need to impose their desired outcome.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child)

    protecting your content from being pushed to an instance that you though your blocked.
    protecting your content from being shared where you though it won't because of the way things are worded.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    And what’s stopping these people and these instances from spreading that content using just the publicly available link? Instead of just clicking “share” they’ll have to open an anonymous browser window and copy paste the link from there, the horror!

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child)

    define these people. define these instances. etc etc

    what's your point? anyone can do a screen shot and share it too.

    if you want to have a conversation about the content of my post, please keep it on topic : without authorised fetch and a domain blocked at the instance level, the content is pushed.

    if you have technical knowledge to add to this or can correct me about the protocol I'm glad to hear it. if not I'm not interested.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago

    That was exactly my point. Blocking instances because “that way my content can’t be seen there” doesn’t make sense, because it’s trivial to bypass it. Yes, even a screenshot will do the job if nothing else, so why talk about protocols in the first place?

    Somebody (maybe you maybe not, can’t check while replying) said that blocking instances was useful so that “my content doesn’t get seen / shared / pushed / etc to people and instances I don’t want”. That doesn’t make sense because of the line above. If you need clarification on who are those people and what are those instances ask them, not me.

    I hope I’m somehow conveying my message. If there is a subtlety in the subject that I didn’t catch feel free to help me understand.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent