@dameoutlaw @thenexusofprivacy oh, i got your last sentence wrong since you threaded it :blobcatlaugh:

ok again:
> Federation was never meant as so “town hall” thus having allowlist actually fits more with the ethos of the Fediverse than simply everyone having relationships with everyone.
My text never was about everyone having relationships with everyone, it was about it wouldnt be a network with that far reach. You may ask how i proof that? You can just look at the current blocklists... Assuming we would turn around everything, admins would be simply to lazy to accept other instances themself so they would rely on shared allowlists which I can say with certainty that there will be drama. And probably even more than with blocklists.
You may explain your assumptions further.

> Isn’t the whole point not to mirror Twitter’s town hall? No, the whole point of the fediverse is to decentralize and you cant build a functional social network without the assumption that every new server is friendly. Feel free to proof me wrong on that.

> Allowlist makes sense & provides users & admin more control.
Dafuq, how do they provide more control? You are in no way in more control and the current state of the fediverse proves this immensely. Ever saw a Instance which has a Allowlist only and keeps their public posts hidden? If you really find one, you can be sure that their admin is a person which far connections or having some background in the existing fediverse as it is. Otherwise their server would be unknown and they couldnt find other servers to federate with.

> Allowlist is more reflective of how people have relationships in real life.
Yes, i agree. But your real life has in no way the same properties as a digital network.

> Isn’t the Fedi always going on about consent-based social networking?
No, it never was, fedi is a privacy nightmare and i hope you realize that rather soon than later