cross-posted from: https://lemmy.blahaj.zone/post/7992691

There are some straightforward opportunities for short-term safety improvements, but this is only the start of what’s needed to change the dynamic more completely.

This is a draft, so feedback welcome!

    • rglullisAEnglish
      81·
      11 months ago

      From previous interactions with the author, I am convinced he is not really interested in the growth of the fediverse and is more than willing to sacrifice anything if it keeps it small and on the fringes. As much as I try to steelman his arguments, I can not find a good reasoning. At best, it is just a reactionary attempt to keep the fediverse exclusive to some minority. At worst, it becomes a way to submit everyone into a ESG-compliance racket. “Nice instance you have over there, it would be a shame if it was marked as the home of nazis…”

      • The Nexus of Privacy@lemmy.blahaj.zoneOPEnglish
        11·
        11 months ago

        No, as the article says at the very beginning, it’s that I think a big reason that fediverse isn’t growing is its failure to deal with safety.

        • rglullisAEnglish
          3·
          11 months ago

          This is the type of argument that makes you less credible, because even if I take what you are saying at face value it shows how all your logic is biased. If “failure to deal with safety” was such a big impediment for mass adoption, how have come the Big Tech alternative still attract billions of users?

    • xigoi@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
      71·
      11 months ago

      Who is the judge of these blocklists?

      The Ministry of Truth, of course.

      • density@kbin.social
        21·
        11 months ago

        who is the judge of the server side code? what about the terrible green on white default lemmy color scheme? who is the judge of https? who is the judge of the physical infrastructure of the internet? who is the judge of wifi6?

        omg it goes so deep judges everywhere judging me!!!

    • density@kbin.social
      21·
      11 months ago

      global blocklists

      good thing nobody suggested that… And if they did it would be completely unenforceable.

      • The Nexus of Privacy@lemmy.blahaj.zoneOPEnglish
        1·
        11 months ago

        Yep. But, even though I didn’t suggest it, I didn’t explicitly say that it didn’t mean global blocklists. So I clarified it, and added a footnote with more detial.

        As Instance-level federation decisions reflect norms, policies, interpretations, and (sometimes) strategy discusses, opinions differ on the definition of “bad actor.” So the best approach is probably going to present the admin of a new instance with a range of recommendations to choose between based on their preference. Software platforms should provide an initial vetted list (along with enough information for a new admin to do something sensible), and hosting companies and third-party recommenders should also be able provide alternatives.

    • haui@lemmy.giftedmc.comEnglish
      21·
      11 months ago

      You can immediately see who is an admin and who is not.

      If you have an open instance and someone puts csam on it and reports you, you’re toast. Thats what blocklists are for and they arent new. Mastodon instances already have blocklists which every sane admin uses. They even come in different flavors.

      The way this works is that certain instances „vote“ on blocks by applying blocks to certain instances and if one, multiple or all „trusted“ insrances block an address, it „federates“ through these updated lists.