@iftas @evan

how does what I want conflict with that?

if a number of users on a server are intentionally pushing any kind of junk at people that they do not want (either obviously or after being told), tell the admin and if they do nothing to stop it or prevent it in the future, defederate them. put them on the default fedi block list. that covers the abuse, malware, illegal stuff.

my dispute is on hate speech that is not pushed. it's unnecessary and such debates will keep many off the fedi.

@wjmaggos @evan it only conflicts if you want to pressure other people to take your approach. You get to do it your way. 40,000 other people get to do it their way.

And I'll add, not all activities need to be reactive, some proactive steps can be helpful, including blocking known bad actors.

@iftas @evan

I'm asking what problems that you listed above, does my more limited approach fail to deal with? afaict we are only arguing over the hate speech. that wasn't in what you brought up.

and I can't bring any pressure. I can only argue in a public forum for a different approach. just as Evan is arguing for that list being taken as a default block list, I'm agreeing but saying nobody should be on there for that which is not pushed on others.

yes block bad taggers but not bad posters.

@wjmaggos @evan I'm not saying it fails to deal with anything at all, from your perspective, for your needs. There are a million fediverses, you get to do whatever you want with yours.

@iftas @evan

that's nice to say but it's not true. there is an idea that people have about the fedi just like they had one about the internet in the 90s (perhaps why I brought it up). norms get established and our growth depends on the brand that creates.

our current brand is very HOA and progressive. you know that. it depresses adoption while some love it. no nice conservative thinks they'd be welcome setting up a server. views on gender or ICE might be called hate and get them defederated.

@benpate @evan im personally a proponent of a standard list so we can share lists. If I share a list with undefined labels, who would ingest it? We have more moderators than Twitter, but without a shared vocabulary we cannot coordinate, collaborate, communicate

@wjmaggos @evan No, I don't see that. I see that in tightly constrained timelines of mutual follows, but I don't see it on fedi writ large.

We are all prisoners of our own chronological bubbles.

Run a few accounts on a few different servers on a few different platforms with a few different denylists, or none.

@iftas @benpate @evan yeah, I'm a proponent of standardised ontologies as well. An additional benefit is that label terms can then be translated to support further interoperability and accessibility.

@evan

I disagree. The only servers that should be blocked are those that fail to address their users who engage in unwanted tagging. That's harassment/abuse. It drives away users. I could support a list of servers somehow so verified.

But to go further than this is a kind of censorship of content allowed elsewhere on the web. Stuff we basically never stumble on while browsing. Without algos here, it will never be forced on us.

I can easily see posts critical of Israel called antisemitic.