CIRCLE WITH A DOT

@kelson
I don't know what you, and those instances, think are bad actors, but I suspect that might include people that .social, being relatively liberal, deliberately doesn't disallow. Concerning the objectively bad actors, they might just tend to go to .social due to the absence of reason to go elsewhere. You can't blame the .social moderators for that. (2/2)
@rimu @dansup

@kelson
According to you it might be no more than theory, but that might be due to a discrepancy in what's perceived proper moderation. As I said, *I* think moderation on .social is fine, as will most users of .social. (1/2)
@rimu @dansup

@kelson In theory, the source instance will only be big if it has proper moderation, as it's one of few differentiating factors. And in my experience, moderation on .social is decent.
@rimu @dansup

@kelson Users also don't expect their blocklist to be public, which would be necessary for this to work. @dansup

@kelson
> harassment, scams, or other abusive replies
Those should be removed by server moderators. If the origin server doesn't take it down, other servers can decide to defederate it. If your own server neither defederates not deletes the reported replies, you should look for another server imho.
@rimu @dansup