I remember some of these discussions around the time of the Twitter and Reddit exodii and the mindset of many of these folks was essentially that they'd used this social media protocol to create a nice, quiet safe space for like-minded tech-savvy queer leftists, and felt that the explosion in interest threatened to expose their posts to people outside of the community that they had come to know and trust -- which is a point of view I can understand, but as a counterargument, you're on a public social media platform, and specifically one that is designed to spread content broadly and indiscriminately to servers outside of your control. If you wanted to keep things out of the view of the larger Internet there were other, better solutions for a community platform that you probably should have picked instead.

[–] Zak@lemmy.world 36 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I'll refrain from writing the uncharitable version of my reaction to the idea that the Fediverse should be some small, close-knit community forever and instead say that people who want small, close-knit communities based on ActivityPub are free to create them. Mastodon and other major server software supports allowlist-only federation.

People using servers with open federation should expect that their posts will reach an ad-hoc, informally-specified, bug-ridden, slow implementation of half of ActivityPub running on a jailbroken smart light bulb, and that it will behave differently from vanilla Mastodon.

[–] jqubed@lemmy.world 11 points 8 months ago

“Running on a jailbroken smart light bulb” might be the best phrase I’ve read all week, congratulations

[–] dameoutlaw@lemmy.ml 3 points 8 months ago

That’s where my frustrations with “consent fedi” come into play. They want to force people to comply with their views. They could go into allow list federation and connect with those that views thing similarly yet they don’t.