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.

@ikantolol

Perhaps that’s what you get without defederation :)

But I say that with my eternal emphasis that each user should be empowered to shape their own experience here, as much as practical, even if that includes an experience that some of us might view as cesspoolish.

@BenJammin @Double_A

@yggdar

Well just don’t discount the possibility that somebody is doing it just for the lolz.

When it comes to this sort of thing there doesn’t need to be any rational motivation or intention to sabotage.

@Burns

@jpm

Think of Lemmy as being just a different Mastodon client that happens to display things to their users with a different skin.

You interact with content on a Lemmy instance the same way as you interact with content on a different Mastodon instance.

(Technically they’re both ActivityPub clients, for the more correct terminology)

There do seem to be some kinks to iron out between the clients, though. The ! thing might be one where they disagree on how to handle it.

@programming