|
Top-level
 > Let's focus on moderation as the issue and not make people feel guilty for choosing a large instance if it's where they feel most comfortable. The problem is, as I have stated repeatedly in this thread, that the size of mastodon.social makes the moderation problem much, much more difficult to deal with. And in the context of the spam attack that started this thread — third in 10 days, all coming from mastodon.social! — the size of mastodon.social *is* the moderation issue. 4 comments
I hear you. I'm just saying that instead of asking the 200k people on m.s. to divide themselves up amongst other instances (basically starting over since posts don't migrate), I think we could solve the problem by throwing more moderators their way. It's hard enough to get people to join mastodon already, de-federating a huge instance is going to leave a lot of people out in the cold who are still trying to figure the place out. It's just bad PR. > I think we could solve the problem by throwing more moderators their way. I disagree, looking at the current growth rate of m.s. > de-federating a huge instance is going to leave a lot of people out in the cold who are still trying to figure the place out. I agree, but we need to find a way to make m.s not "too big to be defederated from." The problem got created by the decision to make a single huge flagship instance in the first place. |
Gregory's Server
@rysiek @faduda
Understood. But think of it this way-- you have people like Neil Gaiman on m.s. with 250k followers. I imagine a good amount of those are not on his instance. You cut him off, and what happens? Do those followers go make an acc on m.s to keep following him, making it even bigger? Does Neil make an account on a smaller instance that very likely can't handle that type of influx?