Back

Login

@Takiro Absolutely - but looking at the current .art situation, only the people who knew in advance that .art was going to defed tech.lgbt would have known to do that. Anyone who missed it would lose contact with a bunch of contacts, and have no idea who. And on the tech.lgbt end, those people would see something very similar to an unfollow-and-block.

The tech can't fix the social problems but it can at least help reduce the fallout when they happen.

@Takiro You're completely missing my point, it isn't to inform, it's to make life as easy as possible. Also, someone may be on holiday, ill or taking a social-media break.
Giving people the option to opt out of individual de-feds means they don't have to go through the arduous process of moving.
Letting them download a list of people they used to follow but now can't at least creates visibility after-the-fact.

@esm @Takiro Thank you! Yeah we tend to bikeshed a lot on here, don't we?
(glad I'm not the only one frustrated by this, I try to look out for when I'm doing it and cut myself off or ask for clarification on What The Real Problem We Need To Solve Is)

@clacke @Poe As I've just said - it's not a foolproof process. Sure it's better now, but from a user POV it's still time-consuming. It also means updating things which link to the old address (linktree, websites, email sigs, etc)

I absolutely did vote with my feet and that's why I'm here. But policy isn't the issue at hand here - admin overreach and abuse of power is. Admittedly that's a social issue: but my point is the technology can make things easier and more transparent.

@levi @clacke @Poe I think we've drifted off. The redirect isn't the problem that needs solving.
See GP: "we really need a good solution for the issue the dot-art/tech-lgbt problem has raised: if your server admin turns into a Malevolent Dictator For Life, they can stop you from talking to your friends." - and you probably won't realise until it's too late.

the problem to solve is reducing the impact of admins who turn harmful, and making the lives of users easier.

@jgordon @clacke @Poe a very good problem to solve: but not the main one here.
the issue I'm trying to point out is that if your instance admin goes nuts and defederates from somewhere on a whim against user wishes (as has happened at least twice that I've heard of this year), you can't get those followers back. you don't even know who they were.
and that's what scares the people I talk to, and pushed them to bluesky: "at least there's no moderation so that can't happen".

@Flaky @Poe @clacke I'd rather talk to the admin, because at least that means there's a human being in the loop. Some of them will be incompetent, others will be malicious, but word about the good (and bad) ones gets around.

@Milo @Poe Sure, they could be dicks about it, but having to log into a server to do it with iptables is going to get them some serious "wow, this admin is a DICK" points.

@Milo @Poe I think my previous point still stands.
In any case an iptables/nginx/apache/whatever level block isn't going to sever the relationships like defederation would, so if a user were to notice and migrate, those relationships should move across = at least in the "follows X" direction.
Post migration, the user affected would see a post from their lost friend (or their friend would see the follow), likely respond with "hi I missed you", and the problem would solve itself.