If/when instance admins on the fediverse decide to ban entire instances from connecting with theirs, they need to do so very responsibly and be 100% open and visible about it. And, I would argue, only in extreme extreme situations this should be done. This practice of banning instances is a very slippery slope and destroys all that the fediverse is.

When users have the power to ban other users and in some cases entire instances, then why on Earth are the admins taking such decisions that affect everyone?

I am sure that if this fediverse will become more popular it will get ruined by such practices. That's why I think the best is to have decentralized networks such as scuttlebutt.nz/ - that's a proper way of decentralizing. Not creating multiple twitters, but giving up on that idea of "a thing", but rather have people directly connect with other people.

@tio that's one of the reasons why I'm hosting my own instance, I just don't want to trust admins to do the right thing.

@jeena The issue is that the vast majority of people won't and can't do that....maybe if these services could be converted as "apps" and somehow when installed to create an instance for that user, it could work. No idea how feasible this is but I am sure the vast majority of people won't setup their own instances.

@tio I agree with that. I think though that those who can do it should do it.

@jeena What happens when the admin of some big instance decides to block you? You won't be able to communicate with anyone from that instance. So there is still an issue here with this approach.

@tio big instances are the main problem I guess. With many small instances the problem will get smaller and smaller.

@jeena But it is unrealistic....I wish it was not
Sign in to participate in the conversation

The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!