230
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] aroom@kbin.social 12 points 6 months ago

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.

[-] Draghetta@lemmy.world 5 points 6 months ago

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

[-] FaceDeer@kbin.social 3 points 6 months ago

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.

[-] aroom@kbin.social 3 points 6 months ago

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?

[-] FaceDeer@kbin.social 0 points 6 months ago

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.

[-] aroom@kbin.social 1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

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

[-] FaceDeer@kbin.social 1 points 6 months ago

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.

[-] aroom@kbin.social 1 points 6 months ago

Yes and that’s their right.

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

[-] FaceDeer@kbin.social 1 points 6 months 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.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)
this post was submitted on 19 Dec 2023
230 points (92.3% liked)

Fediverse

17019 readers
46 users here now

A community dedicated to fediverse news and discussion.

Fediverse is a portmanteau of "federation" and "universe".

Getting started on Fediverse;

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS