Skip to main content


If/when instance admins on the fediverse decide to ban entire instances from connecting with theirs, they need to do so very responsibly and be 100% open and visible about it. And, I would argue, only in extreme extreme situations this should be done. This practice of banning instances is a very slippery slope and destroys all that the fediverse is.

When users have the power to ban other users and in some cases entire instances, then why on Earth are the admins taking such decisions that affect everyone?

I am sure that if this fediverse will become more popular it will get ruined by such practices. That's why I think the best is to have decentralized networks such as https://scuttlebutt.nz/ - that's a proper way of decentralizing. Not creating multiple twitters, but giving up on that idea of "a thing", but rather have people directly connect with other people.

reshared this

in reply to Tio

I could predict a similar to trend to what happened with email: everyone masses on large instances, whose administrators serve as gatekeepers and block the smaller instances which are judged to be too wild and unruly.

Scuttlebutt is tempting, and there used to be (still is?) a service called Twister, which is completely decentralized, without any central server. But it would be much better if everyone one would simply get off those big fediverse servers and host their own instances - either at home or using a service like Mastohost.

Hubzilla, with its nomadic identity and channel cloning takes away some of the risk of depending upon a small server that could go down at some point.

Rokosun reshared this.

in reply to hosh

Thank you for giving this well thought out answer. Its interesting you mentioned Hubzilla, because a while ago Hubzilla caught my eye because of this exact reason, the concept of nomadic identity and channel cloning really reduces a lot of the centralization and/or censorship concerns of federated networks. I haven't used hubzilla before but it sure looks interesting to me.......
in reply to Tio

Centralization is a threat to federated networks, just look at how centralized the email ecosystem is today. I don't know if scuttlebutt is the solution to this, but it sure looks interesting and I'm keeping an eye on it. I also like how @briar does it because they're even less reliant on servers. But there are some technical limitation with all these p2p networks - both person have to be online to connect, networks like scuttlebutt can't scale up because it relies on your disk space, etc.
in reply to Tio

that's one of the reasons why I'm hosting my own instance, I just don't want to trust admins to do the right thing.
in reply to Jeena

The issue is that the vast majority of people won't and can't do that....maybe if these services could be converted as "apps" and somehow when installed to create an instance for that user, it could work. No idea how feasible this is but I am sure the vast majority of people won't setup their own instances.
in reply to Tio

I agree with that. I think though that those who can do it should do it.
in reply to Jeena

What happens when the admin of some big instance decides to block you? You won't be able to communicate with anyone from that instance. So there is still an issue here with this approach.
in reply to Tio

big instances are the main problem I guess. With many small instances the problem will get smaller and smaller.
in reply to Jeena

But it is unrealistic....I wish it was not
in reply to Tio

that would be the holy grail of social networks, that would be amazing!
in reply to Tio

How is it a slippery slope? How is it going to destroy anything?
in reply to Hypolite Petovan

This entry was edited (1 year ago)
in reply to Tio

The major difference with RSS is that it is one-way so it doesn’t carry the same potential for abuse.

But let’s go back to the slippery slope. What if an instance wrongly blocks yours? Like you said, neither your users nor theirs will know about it. How can it slips down further from there? What is the fundamental difference about the network being an archipelago rather than a single island from any individual user standpoint?

And, more importantly, how is it different from regular social circles too far to interact with each other?

One of the great features of decentralized social networks is that you can create multiple accounts on multiple servers and they would all be you, with a varying potential available network for each.
in reply to Hypolite Petovan

Yes RSS is one way, I was expecting that comment, but the example is about that one way: to get the content from the other side. In the fediverse this can be blocked by the middleman (admin).
Like you said, neither your users nor theirs will know about it. How can it slips down further from there?
Abuse of power. Admins can shut down entire instances in seconds. I've already seen others posting about this recently, them being unable to connect with past contacts because their instance got disconnected from others @Ombra 🔵🌻 I think that was the case with you, correct?

I think there are better ways of doing this, such as removing the global timelines and/or not displaying any public posts on your instance, except those of your own users. This way your instance stays "clean" while at the same time you don't interfere with people's ability to connect with others.
in reply to Tio

in reply to Hypolite Petovan

The power is not very limited when you can nuke entire instances from communicating with your own. The practice itself is a slippery slope. If RSS feeds would be the same and refuse to work with certain RSS Readers, that would also be a slippery slope. Or the RSS readers not allowing you to import certain RSS feeds.

The communication between peers should be open. If some instance admins do not want "garbage" on their websites, then there should be smarter ways to deal with that. For one you can clean your instance's users, the ones that register with your website. Second it is better to simply not display any posts as public if they come from other instances. These are some ideas I have.

But to cut the connection with an entire instance and all of its users, seems extreme to me. And a slippery slope indeed since more and more admins will go for this primitive approach and we end up with a disconnected fediverse.

To say this is better than facebook, should not be a good argument.
in reply to Tio

in reply to Hypolite Petovan

there’s no good reasons for all these groups to interact with each other
A saner approach is to not decide for them, but let them decide for themselves. Maybe we should move passs the daddying of all people and let them decide for themselves.
And this domain block feature isn’t exactly secret, the “fediblock” hashtag has ben doing the round and yet not all admins block any instance on sight, most are very responsible and do not block domains lightly.
How are them letting the users know? Will the get notifications and such?
Is there abuse? Probably. Is it significant? Not really because users aren’t tied to a single server. I
The practice is very rudimentary and has large implications the more the fediverse will grow.
Social media network fragmentation is necessary and good.
Let the users decide what to block. Why wouldn't that be enough?
in reply to Tio

Friendica nodes have their domain block list publicly accessible at the /friendica path, including the reason why it was blocked. Not sure about Mastodon but I’m pretty sure they have a public page for it as well.

As for who should have the domain blocking feature, I’d say both. In social networking moderation is key, so more moderation tools is better than fewer. Admins have to deal with moderation reports out of their free time, so domain blocking is a valuable time-saving feature. Will it cause some disappointment among users? Of course, but again, once you stop thinking about an account on one server being the only account you’ll ever want or need like it is enforced on centralized social media, it really isn’t that big of a deal.

As an aside, user-level domain block is slightly trickier to implement, so that’s one of the reasons it isn’t available in Friendica yet.
in reply to Hypolite Petovan

in reply to Tio

Like I told you, as an admin getting one report about an account on another instance is manageable, 10 or 100, much less. At some point you just cut your losses and block the domain. Beyond that there are some instances which bias is pretty clear from their name, their description or local timeline, and an admin might want to proactively block it not to expose their users to any upsetting content.

It isn’t about confort. If you want confort, Twitter and Facebook are for you. Decentralized social media needs some legwork by design and I believe this friction makes it less attractive for attention-seekers and a more friendly place as a result, even if it is less straightforward to use than the big silos.

And if you don’t have any other way of reaching out to your 30% friends you can lose contact with because of a domain block, they were just nice acquaintances and it’s okay to lose contact with them.
in reply to Hypolite Petovan

At some point you just cut your losses and block the domain.
That's what I don't get. Why block other instances. I get if you want to keep your instance focused on a particular topic, and manage your own users, but why block something that's outside your network? Because if you do that you block your users from reaching other users. Why is this an issue? I am truly asking this.
Decentralized social media needs some legwork by design
But we should not take that as something it will always be as such. Friendica chooses to have a very friendly interface and buttons for say formatting the text, instead of letting people use markdown for example. So you do try to make it more comfortable. This should be a good thing. It is not for the attention seekers, but for everyone.
in reply to Tio

in reply to Hypolite Petovan

I am still left in the dark about my initial question: why admins may want to block entire instances? They can very well block the users from their own instance. The only reason is the global feed? If so, why not focus on that.
in reply to Tio

From what I’ve seen, it’s mainly about moderation streamlining. If your moderation policy states that you don’t tolerate Nazis and trolls, it makes sense to block the nazisandtrolls.social domain instead of each individual user on this instance.
in reply to Hypolite Petovan

But if those are not on your instance, why ban their entire instance and your users' ability to do whatever they want and contact whoever they want to!? Imagine if Firefox was banning websites, or gmail entire domains on the premise of values, so you can't reach those.

In any case, I am still of the opinion that such practices are destroying the core of what the fediverse tries to be. A way to connect with anyone from any instance. The fediverse gave a lot of power to small islands to manage their own resources and inhabitants. That should have been enough. Destroying the communication between bridges is not helpful for the fediverse itself.
Unknown parent

Tio
Hold on, these are other instances. Not yours. So then why do you block them again?
in reply to Tio

Because no instance is truly independent from the other in the same potential network (non domain blocked). To avoid hammering servers with repeated requests, an instance keeps a local copy of all the contacts and posts local users are interacting with or mentioned in. So this process happens either at the initiative of local users (follows, likes, replies) or at the initiative of remote contacts (likes, replies, mentions).

So your server can end up harboring pretty unsavory stuff either because one of your users got mad at it and unknowingly imported it locally, or because it was pushed to your servers by a remote contact. Domain blocking is a way to stop both these behaviors and ensure no content from blocked domains will end up being saved locally on your server.
in reply to Hypolite Petovan

Search engines have to deal with this too. And so many other services. Nuking entire URLs and having the effect it has (breaking connections in the fediverse) is not at all a good approach in my view. Especially when this content is temporary. It concerns me this attitude of not looking at the ramifications of such actions/approaches. It makes instance admins not simply guards of their own backyard, but possible roadblocks of the entire fediverse network.

Recently our matrix server was banned from e Linux Matrix chatroom because of 1 spambot account that I was not aware of. Now is our matrix server a spam server? No. And so all of us from our server are unable to join that community. That's a direct example of such an approach.

This is not good at all.
in reply to Tio

At the same time, domain blocking isn't automated nor definitive, so you can always appeal to the admin of the instance you're blocked from. Both the block and the admin account are public information, so there's always a chance at resolving a potential misunderstanding. This is also an upside of the Fediverse, there always are humans on the other end. They might not unblock your domain, but at least you can try.
in reply to Hypolite Petovan

But this is besides the point. Why make things so difficult in the first place? The reason I know about that incident is that someone told me. Then I could not find that admin's contacts. Who knows if our Friendica or Peertube are blocked by other instances....I cannot tell that at all. And this is really sad to be honest. This should be handled in a much much better way.
in reply to Tio

The bottom line is that domain blocking is simple, it is effective, sometimes too much, granted, but it doesn't threaten decentralized social network, only the vision you share about it where everybody should be able to connect with anybody else. I agree this is sad but there's no slippery slope, on the contrary, individual domain blocks are becoming less and less significant as more decentralized social network servers are started, and potential connection opportunities keep growing despite the few domain blocks.
in reply to Hypolite Petovan

in reply to Tio

in reply to Hypolite Petovan

But I do understand that islands with their own owners can create curated islands of focused and like-minded people. However I still do not see a real reason of destroying bridges when no one can enter your island unless you let them. Global feeds and public posts from other instances could be hidden from the public view for example. So yah, you still have full control over your island. No need to destroy any bridge.
This entry was edited (1 year ago)
Unknown parent

Tio
Ok I get it. That's what I was suspecting to be the reason. Now, don't you think there can be better solutions to this? Like say when you block an instance to have the posts coming from there not visible on your instance at all? That's what bothers you, the fact that such posts can be temporarily cached on your server, so I think the smartest solution is to deal with that, rather than killing the connection with an instance, in the name of all users.
This entry was edited (1 year ago)
Unknown parent

Hypolite Petovan
This entry was edited (1 year ago)
in reply to Hypolite Petovan

in reply to Tio

This isn't about outsiders seeing upsetting content on your server, it's about your own users seeing upsetting content on your server, whether it comes from local users or remote users. So your simplistic solution about the global feed covers a non-existing problem.

Beyond that, by default remote contacts can and will frequently enter your island unless you chose to have a truly private server with no federation enabled. And domain blocking is just part of the control you have as an admin.
Unknown parent

Tio
This attitude is going to make the fediverse a limited place of few islands that are isolated from the rest. It destroys what the fediverse had to offer: a way for anyone to connect with anyone, in the network. It is the kind of attitude that I was suspecting many admins have, and that's why I call it a slippery slope event, and concerns me what the fediverse is or will become.

Apples decided to scan and delete child porn images from people's devices. A decision that invades people's privacy. They argue it is for a good cause. But we are naive to think such an attitude won't bleed into other areas/interests/topics. Maybe piracy is next. Encryption is great, despite terrorists using it for bad purposes. Same with the fediverse, if we want to keep it great and a way for anyone to connect with anyone, we have to be careful about what compromises we make. Because if we start to ban entire instances, a decision we take for others not only for us, that will affect a lot of people, then this will also bleed out. That's my concern.
in reply to Hypolite Petovan

You decide what "upsetting" is, for others. This is upsetting indeed. That's one. Second users have full control over their feed. It is not like they are constantly attacked from outside, and if they are, they can protect themselves. They have the tools.

Third, remote users cannot enter your instance, they can only interact with the people on your instance, correct? And so, is up to people how they interact with these remote users.
Unknown parent

Tio
My server is also in Germany, and yet I do not block anything and anyone. I think it is worth standing against such BS rules, made by the people who know nothing about human behavior or the technology they try to change.
in reply to Tio

in reply to Tio

This is an utterly privileged position I will not discuss further. You have made your point very clearly, and I hope it won't put any of your users in the awkward position of disavowing their own instance admin.
in reply to Hypolite Petovan

I did not create a kindergarten and decided to take care of a bunch of children. The Internet should not act like that especially for such platforms like social networks and the like, that should be public spaces. Humans have a lot of tools at their disposal to defend themselves. Else you try to become the judge and jury and this never ends up well. Facebook, Youtube, and the like are all like that. And the result is a mix-bag of censorship and a lot of crap orbiting around, plus they don't fix anything.

It is not like my instance is a wild wild west, but I think is a lot more wise and smart to deal with it like I just described. There is no slippery slope for me, since there is no slope to begin with. I clearly say my instance is trade-free for anyone and it is the users' own responsibility what they post. A slope is created when you empower yourself as the judge and jury, and the more you do that, the more slippery it becomes because you have to deal with decisions (who to ban, what to ban).
Unknown parent

Tio
If I were running a bar in analogue life, I would just as well take the right not to let people with certain opinions in. My server, my rules.
But that's what I'm trying to say, that you can manage your own bar. But you also tell your customers who they are allowed to call from that bar or not. You tell them they are not even allowed to call the other bar because you've heard there are nazis there. That's the issue that I see. Manage your bar, but don't cut off the signal to the other bars for all of your customers. That's a bad practice.

And thanks for engaging I don't want to stress anyone with these, but I think it is important to discuss such topics.
in reply to Tio

You may think that you allow for maximum freedom with your self-described style of hands-free moderation on your server, but this actually restricts it mostly to people who aren't already marginalized and who need this kind of proactive moderation to feel comfortable on a server.

You don't want to be judge and jury and deal with moderation decisions, it's up to you, but this already is a decision you made that has actual consequences. So you've already been judge and you've decided you don't want to be moderation judge, which makes your server unwelcome for people who would expect you to be the judge so they don't have to, because they don't want to be judge either.
in reply to Hypolite Petovan

That's a very weird judo move :D - If I let people post what they want, I become a judge and jury because I do not want to moderate their conversations!? It is like me having no opinion about gay people, and that makes me have an opinion by not having one :P.

In any case, I do not tell people how to use our Matrix chat, our Friendica instance, or any of our tools. They are tools. A service. This make them better in my view because for one it does not restrict people, and second I do not put myself in a sketchy position to manage the online life of others. Imagine if I were to remove websites from our Searx search results....or not allow people to join some Matrix chatrooms...to me this is insane to even think of managing things this way.
in reply to Tio

This was not meant to be a gotcha, but a real consequence of your decision not to take moderation decisions. And yes, not having an opinion may be considered having an opinion, and not necessarily the good one. Desmond Tutu reportedly said "If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor."

Like I said, by positioning yourself away from moderation decisions, you end up attracting users who do not need these moderation decisions while repelling users who do need you to take moderation decisions. You don't need to change your mind, but you need to be aware that your decision influences what audience your server is favoring.
in reply to Hypolite Petovan

in reply to Hypolite Petovan

Like I said, by positioning yourself away from moderation decisions, you end up attracting users who do not need these moderation decisions while repelling users who do need you to take moderation decisions. Y

Look....why Friendica has all sorts of tools to allow users to protect themselves? Because you too think that users should have these tools. Are you saying these tools are not enough?
in reply to Tio

This question is absurd, I could turn it around back at you, why Friendica has all sorts of tools for admins to protect their servers? Because we think admins should have them. Not all admins use them, you're a good example of that, so why should users have to use their tools?
in reply to Hypolite Petovan

I never said admins should not have the tools you provide them with. I said that blocking entire instances is a very bad practice for admins. And should be done very carefully and transparently if it is done. But you seemed to ignore that users have tremendous power over managing their own online lives. You can ignore or block anyone, even delete their posts from your face :).
in reply to Tio

And this is work. Domain blocking potentially avoids a lot of work to your individual users and that's a valid reasons for it.
in reply to Hypolite Petovan

Scanning users' devices for potential child porn makes the police's job easier. That's what they will say. I still think the trade-off is not worth it. Or scanning the Internet traffic for pirated content, and so on. Same here, the trade-off is not worth it. It is so easy to manage your own federated life that is not worth enforcing the practice of disconnecting the network from itself, little by little.
in reply to Tio

I’m glad it is easy for you, please don’t assume it is the same for everyone else.