Submitted ⁨⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩ by ⁨atomicpoet@firefish.city⁩ to ⁨fediversenews@venera.social⁩

If you believe the Fediverse should operate in an "opt-in" manner, why don't you create or join Fediverse servers that block everything by default, and only federate with servers that are deliberately whitelisted?

This isn't a rhetorical question. I'm genuinely curious.

@fediversenews@venera.social

Comments

Sort:hotnew top

tauon@possum.city ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
@atomicpoet@firefish.city no one says this
source
noondlyt@mastodon.social ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
@atomicpoet @fediversenews You are referencing a known corporate backed instance. When I joined Mastodon it was because the vast majority of the fediverse was people who believed (that's what they said) in open, free, non-corporate backed, no advertising social media. Large publicly traded, profit driven, shareholder controlled entities are now entering this space. Going forward it may be necessary (for me) to initially block. I will be migrating.
source
- atomicpoet@firefish.city ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  @noondlyt@mastodon.social @fediversenews@venera.social I’m actually not referencing one particular corporate-backed instance. Threads wasn’t even top of mind.
  source
  - noondlyt@mastodon.social ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    @atomicpoet @fediversenews I was talking about Bluesky and Threads.
    source
    -> View More Comments
HauntedOwlbear@eldritch.cafe ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
@atomicpoet @fediversenews I'm thinking about it for the micro instance I run, but I'm concerned about it being labour intensive, as my public account for work stuff is on there.
As it is, I block servers (etc) the users (all four of them) might not want, and unblock them if they want me to.
source
shoq@mastodon.social ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
@atomicpoet I have never understood why this was even an issue. If you insist on controlling, or being protected from what goes in or out of an instance, than join an instance that does that openly and enjoy your bubble of choice. Done.
source