@jsit @Raccoon the most notable one, you probably don't want to join...truth.social😬
It was built with Mastodon code, just using the "limited federation mode" or completely removed federation altogether because it's the same thing in a sense.
Conversation
Notices
-
Embed this notice
BeAware :fediverse: (beaware@social.beaware.live)'s status on Friday, 02-Aug-2024 05:51:10 JST 
BeAware :fediverse:
-
Embed this notice
Jay 🗳️ (jsit@social.coop)'s status on Friday, 02-Aug-2024 05:51:12 JST 
Jay 🗳️
@Raccoon I have a test instance that I will enable limited federation on.
I would love to know if there are any big instances that do this already.
-
Embed this notice
Raccoon at TechHub :mastodon: (raccoon@techhub.social)'s status on Friday, 02-Aug-2024 05:51:13 JST 
Raccoon at TechHub :mastodon:
@jsit
As someone who doesn't deal with that directly, I forget that we have options like that. That is a good question, because if that's the case, it changes the nature of how disconnected these instances would be. -
Embed this notice
Jay 🗳️ (jsit@social.coop)'s status on Friday, 02-Aug-2024 05:51:14 JST
Jay 🗳️
@Raccoon I think maybe part of my confusion is not fully understanding how allowlists work. Can someone on a LIMITED_FEDERATION_MODE instance be *followed by* someone on a non-allowlisted instance?
For instance (heh), limited.example is in limited federation mode with only safe.example in its allowlist.
Someone on unknown.example wants to follow @ user @ limited.example. Can they do this?
-
Embed this notice
Raccoon at TechHub :mastodon: (raccoon@techhub.social)'s status on Friday, 02-Aug-2024 05:51:15 JST
Raccoon at TechHub :mastodon:
@jsit
I think you're talking about people who aren't in the conversation though: everyone who would be involved in this thread maintains a substantial block list, even if we have different standards for it. No one here is going to suggest a 100% open Fedi.Our issue is the number of new and marginalized instances that are going to find a chunk of the network cut off by this sort of thing. We want new servers to be made, and we want those servers to thrive, because new servers add new life to the network, and a very important part of both of all of that is that good posts need to be able to spread far and wide and fast.
The Content Must Flow.
How does one create a new marginalized instance in an environment where instances with great content from marginalized groups is going to be cut off from them for however long it takes to get on the list? How do we let people on these new instances know more content will come, and why would they join a server that's blocked off?
-
Embed this notice
Raccoon at TechHub :mastodon: (raccoon@techhub.social)'s status on Friday, 02-Aug-2024 05:51:17 JST
Raccoon at TechHub :mastodon:
@jsit @jaz @jerry @jztusk @Crell
> "Because I am not among a group that is a frequent target of abuse, I have the privilege of enjoying the benefits of being on an “open” instance without having to worry about the drawbacks."But here's the flip side of that, one of the main things that makes people a bit squeamish about this: because you're not a member of a marginalized group, you haven't been on a server that has been brigaded with false reports trying to get the mainstream to block you, and then suddenly find a bunch of other marginalized groups' servers have blocked you without checking up on those reports. This is one of the things we keep seeing between queer fedi and black fedi.
What's to stop a member of one group, bigoted towards another, from getting in here and keeping servers that should be on the list off of it?
It then becomes a question of who will bell the cat: who will take on the responsibility, and thus open themselves up to abuse, of maintaining this?
-
Embed this notice
Jay 🗳️ (jsit@social.coop)'s status on Friday, 02-Aug-2024 05:51:17 JST
Jay 🗳️
@Raccoon Yes, who decides what to put on an allowlist/blocklist and what are the criteria they use continues to be a fraught problem with no simple solution.
But I was countering the claim a lot of people make that shared allowlists/blocklists in principle -- even if "perfectly curated" -- are antithetical to the Fediverse, which I think isn't true.
Some people bristle at the idea of these lists not because they think they might not be perfect, but because they want a nearly 100% open Fedi.
-
Embed this notice
Jay 🗳️ (jsit@social.coop)'s status on Friday, 02-Aug-2024 05:51:19 JST
Jay 🗳️
@Raccoon @jaz @jerry @jztusk @Crell Because I am not among a group that is a frequent target of abuse, I have the privilege of enjoying the benefits of being on an “open” instance without having to worry about the drawbacks. I will probably always prefer to be on an instance that is blocklist-based instead of allowlist-based. But many people do not have that privilege.
-
Embed this notice
Raccoon at TechHub :mastodon: (raccoon@techhub.social)'s status on Friday, 02-Aug-2024 05:51:21 JST
Raccoon at TechHub :mastodon:
@jaz @jerry @jztusk @Crell
@jsit was talking about this the other day, and I keep feeling like I shot this idea down too soon...https://social.coop/@jsit/112876102135328617
...but maybe that would be a good plan for some of these new and small instances, especially the ones that are trying to be safe spaces for minority groups. Get some momentum going, get some connections with other servers, get some contact with other server staffs, maybe eventually open it up.
Yeah, I think a federated whitelist would be a good idea.
Still, I'm looking at how many of these groups making block lists purport to be going after bigotry and harassment or whatever, but then you see them blocking a bunch of queer instances or black instances or something, and I wonder who might actually be trusted with this sort of thing. I can even imagine TechHub and Infosec showing up because someone with list access doesn't like the "techbros" or whatever...
-
Embed this notice
Jay 🗳️ (jsit@social.coop)'s status on Friday, 02-Aug-2024 05:51:21 JST
Jay 🗳️
@Raccoon @jaz @jerry @jztusk @Crell The refrain of “allowlists/blocklists are bad because it means you won’t hear from me” misses the point: This is why they are GOOD.
People don’t have a “right” to talk to your instance, this is a privilege that should be EARNED. And the protection of vulnerable people on social media is more important than my ability to make sure they can see my dumb posts.
This is not antithetical to the Fediverse. Choosing which instances to federate with is central to it!
-
Embed this notice
Jaz (IFTAS) (jaz@mastodon.iftas.org)'s status on Friday, 02-Aug-2024 05:51:22 JST 
Jaz (IFTAS)
Why not both? Some servers can run open federation, some can run allowlist-only, some can run in quarantine-first mode, and over time I'm sure we'll see shared lists, reputation signals, and trusted upstream servers to help manage the onboarding/allowing.
"Disallow all, but allow all servers already allowed by x, y and z" is one way to approach.
Almost none of the asks I've seen are either/or propositions, they are generally admin options to enable or not.
-
Embed this notice
All GNU social JP content and data are available under the