Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Threads is blocking servers on the Fediverse. Here's how we unblocked ourselves.

soapbox.pub

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 67 posts

Re: Threads is blocking servers on the Fediverse. Here's how we unblocked ourselves.

#41

Post by whatshisface »

camgunz wrote: post #38
whatshisface wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the reason for "not forcing them to handle content from server Y" is that the admin of server X had a name calling spat with an individual user on server X, the fact that the fediverse makes instance admins into miniature dukes and dutchesses, complete with wars and Honor, is an unalloyed pain. ;-)

Again it doesn't really matter because it's just the way it works, but it's also a feature for server admins. Imagine being harassed by someone, or imagine that person harassing your users, blah blah blah. Is there some hypothetical where this feature is abused in a super petty way? Sure. Welcome to all features in all software.

Let's take a gun as an example. You could use it to shoot a bad guy, but there are a lot of times where the person who got shot was a good guy, and a lot of other times it's by accident. The same goes for moderation - you can justify handing out the power to cut off connections between entire communities to random people by thinking of the ways it could be used for good but it doesn't get you out of dealing with the ways it can be used to harm.

Re: Threads is blocking servers on the Fediverse. Here's how we unblocked ourselves.

#42

Post by phoe-krk »

whatshisface wrote: post #39
phoe-krk wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your claim that Twitter has rational administration is a very bold one. (Which accidentally strengthens your confirmation of me "hitting the nail on the head".)

I was thinking of Bluesky when I said that, but it was true for Twitter for the use of the word rational I am talking about (keeping personal beefs out of it and at least trying to be impartial). Elon Musk has since made himself, and X, the perfect example of an instance admin on a power trip! That's a good analogy, actually. You might be on a moderation team with sensible feedback policies but the odds are very high…

I'm curious what Bluesky is going to evolve into, truth be told, especially once it begins to federate. It's privately owned, and as X has demonstrated, there is no admin that will allow technology to get in the way of the power trips they end up having, but Fediverse at least minimizes this damage due to its "defederate-and-move-on" architecture.

Re: Threads is blocking servers on the Fediverse. Here's how we unblocked ourselves.

#43

Post by whatshisface »

phoe-krk wrote: post #42
whatshisface wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was thinking of Bluesky when I said that, but it was true for Twitter for the use of the word rational I am talking about (keeping personal beefs out of it and at least trying to be impartial). Elon Musk has since made himself, and X, the perfect example of an instance admin on a power trip! That's a good analogy, actually. You might be on a moderation team with sensible feedback policies but the odds are very high…

I'm curious what Bluesky is going to evolve into, truth be told, especially once it begins to federate. It's privately owned, and as X has demonstrated, there is no admin that will allow technology to get in the way of the power trips they end up having, but Fediverse at least minimizes this damage due to its "defederate-and-move-on" architecture.

Jack Dorsey has a history of letting commercial interests stay in front of his share in the universal human flaw of power tripping, which is not exactly a complement but does imply Bluesky will end up mostly like Twitter did.

Re: Threads is blocking servers on the Fediverse. Here's how we unblocked ourselves.

#44

Post by phoe-krk »

whatshisface wrote: post #43
phoe-krk wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm curious what Bluesky is going to evolve into, truth be told, especially once it begins to federate. It's privately owned, and as X has demonstrated, there is no admin that will allow technology to get in the way of the power trips they end up having, but Fediverse at least minimizes this damage due to its "defederate-and-move-on" architecture.

Jack Dorsey has a history of letting commercial interests stay in front of his share in the universal human flaw of power tripping, which is not exactly a complement but does imply Bluesky will end up mostly like Twitter did.

I hope this is correct, but as always, we'll see. There can always be some sort of a Musk to buy it off Dorsey in a year or three.

Re: Threads is blocking servers on the Fediverse. Here's how we unblocked ourselves.

#45

Post by whatshisface »

phoe-krk wrote: post #40
gettodachoppa wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This seems fair, unless these blocklists are used to bully neutral servers into adopting your blocklist? Let's say there's a federation of bully admins who dislike Server Wrongthink. There's a moderate server Moderate which they're federated with, but Moderate does not block Wrongthink. In this scenario, will Moderate get blocked too? Or only Wrongthink?

You calling them "bully" implies that they should not have a right to federate only with instances that they consider federation-worthy. Who are you to tell them what they ought to do with their own instances? Also, the problem you describe is a social problem. You can't solve those with technology, as they say around HN.

But they are acting as bullies, both in the hypothetical example, and in several real-life cases. If a hypothetical right involves causing harm to others, maybe it's not the right one first suggested.

Re: Threads is blocking servers on the Fediverse. Here's how we unblocked ourselves.

#47

Post by phoe-krk »

whatshisface wrote: post #45
phoe-krk wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You calling them "bully" implies that they should not have a right to federate only with instances that they consider federation-worthy. Who are you to tell them what they ought to do with their own instances? Also, the problem you describe is a social problem. You can't solve those with technology, as they say around HN.

But they are acting as bullies, both in the hypothetical example, and in several real-life cases. If a hypothetical right involves causing harm to others, maybe it's not the right one first suggested.

Them being "bullies", whatever is meant by "bullying" in this context, doesn't deprive them of their right to own their instances or align with administrators with similar moderation policies. Fediverse is literally built on the idea that people own their instances and therefore all own the choices they make that affect these instances, just as you own the choice to call their flocking behavior "bullying".

Or, in other words, what are you expecting? It's their hardware and their software. If one pays for hosting, and owns the software, then - unlike you or me - they're entitled to do as they wish with their stuff and to bear the consequences of any moral judgments they make. Which is the same as Twitter, same as Threads, same as Bluesky, just on a smaller and more interconnected scale.

Re: Threads is blocking servers on the Fediverse. Here's how we unblocked ourselves.

#48

Post by whatshisface »

phoe-krk wrote: post #47
whatshisface wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But they are acting as bullies, both in the hypothetical example, and in several real-life cases. If a hypothetical right involves causing harm to others, maybe it's not the right one first suggested.

Them being "bullies", whatever is meant by "bullying" in this context, doesn't deprive them of their right to own their instances or align with administrators with similar moderation policies. Fediverse is literally built on the idea that people own their instances and therefore all own the choices they make that affect these instances, just as you own the choice to call their flocking behavior "bullying". Or, in oth…

A lot of people would say I'm transgressing my bounds if I try to use the influence I gained by paying for my server to threaten you into changing what content your server serves to your users. That's the essence of "block X or I'll block you."

Re: Threads is blocking servers on the Fediverse. Here's how we unblocked ourselves.

#49

Post by phoe-krk »

whatshisface wrote: post #48
phoe-krk wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Them being "bullies", whatever is meant by "bullying" in this context, doesn't deprive them of their right to own their instances or align with administrators with similar moderation policies. Fediverse is literally built on the idea that people own their instances and therefore all own the choices they make that affect these instances, just as you own the choice to call their flocking behavior "bullying". Or, in oth…

A lot of people would say I'm transgressing my bounds if I try to use the influence I gained by paying for my server to threaten you into changing what content your server serves to your users. That's the essence of "block X or I'll block you."

And? They have a right to do so. In particular, they have a right to defederate any server for any reasons - which includes mine, yours, or this other person's, with or without asking things like "block X or I'll block you".

Re: Threads is blocking servers on the Fediverse. Here's how we unblocked ourselves.

#50

Post by whatshisface »

phoe-krk wrote: post #49
whatshisface wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of people would say I'm transgressing my bounds if I try to use the influence I gained by paying for my server to threaten you into changing what content your server serves to your users. That's the essence of "block X or I'll block you."

And? They have a right to do so. In particular, they have a right to defederate any server for any reasons - which includes mine, yours, or this other person's, with or without asking things like "block X or I'll block you".

Isn't that a bit like saying a gold prospector has a right to shoot anybody in the whole Wild West, all because he can?
Post reply on HN