Why is defederation an option when Limit/Mute exist? (reddthat.com)

submitted 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) by breden@reddthat.com to c/fediverse@lemmy.world

48 comments fedilink hide all child comments

In short i just jumped into the whole Mastodon blocking drama and am somewhat disappointed to see it as childish as reddit's power mod drama. Accelerated by the fact that a Limit/Mute option exist just fine, i wonder why Block/Defederation is an option at all. It only moves power from the user to admins without anything in return. With just Mute, as far as i can tell, one still wouldn't have to look on certain instances, but could interact/whitelist certain individuals and we'd get rid of the multi account requirement overnight. So why isn't it that way?

Edit: For those annoyed by the same siloing issues, look into ATProto. Bluesky may be a big unknown, but the protocol itself looks a lot more promising in terms of user freedom.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] GreatDong3000@lemm.ee -1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

I think fediverse platforms could have the option to call for a vote in defederating.

Meaning, idk, users who have been active for the past X months on the instance get notified about the admins wanting to defederate from some instance, then the users get to check out the instance themselves and vote yes or no to defederate.

To be clear, I am not saying this should be "mandatory", I am saying instance admins could have the option to call for a vote if and when they want to.

So you could decide to join an instance that vows to go the democratic way if you want to. Nothing would bind the admins to always call for a vote except their own word tho. Or you could not care about it at all and join an instance that also doesn't care.

I also would like to get notified whenever the instance I'm in defederates from another instance, and have an easily accessible list of all instances that we have defederated from.