|
Top-level
@benroyce, @vosje62, @thibault β But you didn't respond to Paul's point. Wasn't the whole point of Mastodon to provide an *alternative* client for an *open* network that no individual or company needs permission to use, allowing for a plurality of values and policies across instances? By all means, pick an inherently walled technology if that's what you want, but asking Mastodon to be that seems like asking Mastodon not to be Mastodon. 7 comments
 @Starfia I think you are right. The open structure is the basics of the system. So far there are enough 'unwanted servers' around that don't get federated. With Threads it is not different. - Both servers and individuals can set the bounderies they want. - That's is how it works for all parties.  @vosje62 @Starfia @thibault but more importantly that subset of servers that does block all of dark fedi and threads and bluesky and gab and truth social, etc, are those servers expressing the freedom of the network the best because you fail to comprehend the threat plutocrat, bigoted, and fascist actors represent to the freedom of the network @bjoern @vosje62 @Starfia @thibault agreed someone can make any network they want any rules they want but if their rules suck (bigotry, etc), they're relegated to obscurity as they should be we simply let the pieces fall where they may, and we stop pretending bigotry and tolerance can coexist they can't @bjoern @vosje62 @Starfia @thibault nothing you said disagrees with anything i said a mastodonserverpact+ that says no to threads and bluesky doesn't mean you have to join it. it also doesn't mean servers aren't willing to join the + pact of their own free will. this is voluntary, coordinated group action if it is appealing enough along with other provisions in the + pact it will grow and be successful and, forgive my directness: who gives a shit if someone doesn't like it it's voluntary |
Gregory's Server
@Starfia @vosje62 @thibault
I think at this point we're well past the "if you don't let plutocrats and nazis on your network you're a hypocrite" argument, wouldn't you agree?
Freedom doesn't mean letting actors who oppose freedom free reign- a logically sound point. There is no contradiction
Because we're talking about a social contract
I grant you as much rights as I grant myself
If you use those rights to say someone doesn't deserve rights, you've voided the contract and I owe you nothing