 “Hey, some fediverse instances are growing larger and larger, isn’t that great? Yay!” Stop and think about what this means. You’re celebrating the creation of fiefdoms and feudal lords. Mini Zuckerbergs, if you will. There’s a reason I’ve been shouting from the rooftops about limiting server sizes for as long as I can remember. e.g., If mastodon.social blocks my instance of one, they block 1,196,910 accounts from interacting with me. If I block them… I do the exact same thing to myself. 18 comments
 @aral So, is it only harmful when other people block .art but not when .art block other instances? 🤔 I'm sure Stux has their reasons to reach this extreme, honestly.  @JamesGLA90 @aral I'm afraid m.o is ran by the exact same team as m.s... AKA, zero moderation, and was basically set up so people stopped going "mastodon might as well be centralised because everyone is on m.s"  @aral one of my first thoughts when I joined fedi was "there should be a pact to only federate with instances below X" - had anything like that emerged or been proposed?  @jaystephens @aral Dubar's number of some sort? It sure would help self-regulation, preventing anonymous ttolling crap. @Marrekoo @aral   @aral My conclusion : we should limit the number of users in any instance to keep moderation bearable. .social should ask user to move to another instance after a 30 days period, keeping the onboarding easy. .social should open a lot of new instances. but also we need a way to migrate our accounts, with posts and all. so we could easily reshape the distribution.  @aral perhaps there is a need for a kind of small instance pact towards blocking when one of them is served with a unjustified block. With enough critical mass they'd have to think twice before doing it. |
Gregory's Server
@aral its allowing the defacto implementation of a power differential, shifting from an implicit collaborative mindset, and enabling a coercive approach, if the larger instance chooses to. Not good.