Apparently ex twitter employees have created an mastodon instance for themselfs and their family.

So what will that solve? It's an even more echo chamber than twitter

@iiii i would say that. The biggest echochamber is the filtered list of tweets.

@stop a filtered server is even more of an echo chamber

@iiii Only as much as you want it to be. I much prefer it over the sheer amount of bullshit that Twitter forces on you.

@PrivateGER well, true. If the owner does not try to police what servers are allowed to be connected and what's servers are not allowed to be connected, then it could be fine. But I doubt that would be the case at all.

@iiii The nice thing is that you have a choice in that matter, and if no option satisfies your needs you can just build up your own.

@PrivateGER not really. The server owner is still ultimately the bottleck. Even if you go to another server, they can be totally disconnected because of that bottleck.

@iiii I was referring to it being possible to just stand up your own server. It's not difficult at all, while it's impossible for Twitter or anything similar.

@PrivateGER let's be real: regular users cannot just go and make their own servers. Only a very small fractions of users with technical knowledge and experience can do that.

@iiii Yeah, of course.

And those users can find a server where they agree with the moderation policies. User choice is a good thing, and trust me, there are *many* options that you can freely pick from.

@PrivateGER but the main issue is still remains: the user cannot connect two servers if at least one of the admins have severed the connection. No additional better moderation posicies can do that. The possibility for fragmentation is very high in mastodon.

@iiii Yes, and that "problem" is unsolvable because the fediverse is decentralized. Of course it's fragmented, that's the whole point, otherwise small instances would not exist. Every instance builds its own little network.

Blacklisting is hella effective for moderation and a necessity if there's no central authority. If you see an instance filled with fascist weirdos, you can just throw them out entirely and never have to see them again. I'm never going back to something like Twitter where you're basically helpless.

@PrivateGER no, it is solvable: do not have the means for a server admin to limit the federation. Let the users decide what to block and what not to block. The decentralized network is a good thing, but the ability to just fragment it on demand is going against it

@PrivateGER you're not helpless. Every user can block a particular server for themselves.

@iiii
Could you? Yes.
Do I want to expose users to terminally online losers until they manually block them? No.

I value the time of people, and every second dealing with crazies online is wasted. I use blocks sparingly, but there are still a good 20 instances fully blocked that are just filled with pure shit or downright illegal content.

@PrivateGER well, if you decide for others, then you're no better than the corps that decide what you should see 🤷‍♂️

If you want an unmoderated experience, there are many servers for exactly that. Just know that you'll be on the same server as a whole lot of incredibly annoying idiots who are there only because of that policy.

@iiii Nope. I'm better because my blocklist is public, has reasons given and because of the fact that there's a simple way to migrate to another instance should you be unhappy with mine.

@PrivateGER as I've said: unmoderated does not mean you can read all the servers anyway. The severed connections are still severed. It's a bubble forming fragmentation.

@iiii You confuse the silence and full reject actions. Not every block is a full reject, not even close.

For those who don't know there is a lwvel before full block: silencing.
Users can follow and read affected servers, but they won't show up in the federated timeline.