@sabreW4K3 Well that’s a pretty nonsensical take.

The use of some decentralization techniques? It is decentralized because it uses decentralization techniques, and that’s all there is to it. It is far more decentralized than this platform because of the techniques it uses. It focuses on users instead of centralizing around instances.

From the point of view of power dynamics? GTFO with that BS.

No, BlueSky is decentralized. It is more decentralized than this platform. These people are trying really really hard to bend things and find problems that don’t really match reality.

And they need to be called out over it.

I really wish this platform was more decentralized, but that’s not how the engineers designed it, and we need to call them out over it.

@eddeeMN that a person is a liar is no justification for setting up a straw man argument.

Still, the fact that key campaigns against this proposal, and that his voters reject the proposal, comes together to say that he would lose support and lose votes should he actually try to implement the thing that he says he doesn’t want to implement and that his people don’t want him to implement.

It gets into this really nutty conspiracy theory. Yeah, Trump’s a liar, but that doesn’t give much license to ignore everything else happening in his entire orbit to put words in his mouth and criticize him for the thing that he explicitly rejects.

Just because he’s a liar doesn’t mean you can ignore everything and make up an alternative story and run with it.

@politics @DemocracyMattersALot

@eddeeMN and Trump has explicitly rejected the plan.

So Trump and other high-profile conservatives have joined with critica of Heritage to say that they are misguided and that this is not the way forward for the country.

It’s not a blueprint for a second Trump term because Trump has said that’s not anything he’s interested in going by.

@politics @DemocracyMattersALot

I just like that the question came from an account with the name mom :)

~(also, I didn’t know either)~

@Timwi @Kalcifer @BlanK0 @mom

@Sprite I could imagine two schools of thought on that.

(and I’m not saying one is right or not)

The other side is I imagine a ban represents an intention to disconnect, including the connection that would be required to let the person know they’re banned.

That also avoids drama that a misbehaving user might stir up in response to the ban.

Technically, in this distributed system, banning is more about ignoring someone. Instances can’t trust each other, so by keeping banning on the receiver side instead of the sender side, the ban-er has more control over the banning.

Moderation in the Fediverse is about making sure MY users on MY instance get the experience they want, regardless of what any other instance does.

It all comes down to the distributed structure here.

@Sprite I don’t think this is really possible in a distributed system like Fediverse since there isn’t a centralized list of bans.

You’d have to go to every instance one by one asking if you’re on their ban list, and since that list of instances is huge and changing by the day it’s just not practical under the design of this system.

@Sprite I don’t know if it would be a HUGE leap forward, but it’s a case of might as well.

AFAIK, ActivityPub allows arbitrary fields to be added to the Profile object, so sites might as well add some sort of adult/nonadult tag (maybe not 18+ as ages of majority differ internationally).

It would be as useful as alcohol sites putting up splash screens checking users’ ages before they access the website: No, not trustworthy, but checks the box for legal compliance.

And yes, some users might want to have their interactions skewed toward older folks, again yes, not trustworthy, but it would help some.