Blocks due to lack of incompatibility with Mastodon and its culture may happen; CW: long (3,750 characters), Fediverse meta, non-Mastodon Fediverse meta, user blocking meta, instance blocking meta
Artikel ansehen
Zusammenfassung ansehen
This whole thread gave me to think.
Could it be that countless Friendica, Hubzilla and (streams) users are blocked on countless mostly Mastodon instances by the admins because reporting users the Mastodon doesn't work on these projects?
So there's a user who doesn't fully act according to the Mastodon community standards. That user's posts appear on some Mastodon instance.
The wrongdoing: For example, what's perceived as hashtag abuse; see the linked thread. Or no Mastodon-style content warning where Mastodon culture would demand one*. Or something like that.
What does the admin do? Use the report system to report that user to the admins and moderators of their own home instance.
Problem: That particular user isn't on Mastodon. Not on anything that was modelled after Mastodon either. That user is on Friendica or Hubzilla or (streams). Correct me if I'm wrong, but AFAIK, neither has Mastodon's report system implemented.
The report never reaches the admin of that instance. And the instance doesn't have any more staff.
Well, then they could write directly to the admin of that instance. If only the Fediverse contact of the instance admin was available on the instance frontpage. Or anywhere on the instance Web interface.
Even if they could, they might get the idea that they could catch the admin's attention by mentioning them in a public post. Spoiler: Doesn't work with Friendica accounts, Hubzilla channels and (streams) channels.
Oh, and at least Hubzilla and (streams) allow you to restrict from whom you receive direct messages. Regardless of whether or not that's a good idea, it's possible to make it so that DMs from random Mastodon users no longer end up in your stream. Worse yet: These Mastodon users don't even know that their DMs don't reach the recipient.
Okay, last resort, complaints about that user can be posted publicly under the hashtag #
MastoAdmin. Should reach lots of admins, right?
Yes, but almost exclusively Mastodon admins. It's
MastoAdmin, after all. Why should an admin of, say, a Friendica node or a Hubzilla hub follow that hashtag? Neither of them is Mastodon, and neither of them has anything to do with Mastodon. They didn't even federate with Mastodon, Mastodon federated with them.
Oh, and besides, to my best knowledge,
they can't even follow hashtags in the first place. Or is Hubzilla the only one out of the three that doesn't have that feature yet?
Anyways, the warning with the #
MastoAdmin hashtag doesn't reach them either.
So whatever you try to let some Friendica or Hubzilla or (streams) admin know that a user on their instance "misbehaves", the admin doesn't react and "moderate" that user.
Conclusion for your typical Mastodon admin: That instance is unmoderated. From the point of view of people who only know Mastodon beyond the name, the admin must ignore all reports.
We can be glad if this leads only to blocking the "misbehaving" user on lots of Mastodon instances and not to what's standard for unmoderated or undermoderated instances on Mastodon: blocking the whole instance.
*Footnote: Neither of the three projects mentioned here has a "Content Warning" field. Hubzilla and (streams) have a "Summary" field which is the same thing, but especially newbies and those who are hardly in touch with the ActivityPub side of the Fediverse don't know it's the same. Also, that field is only available for posts (= first posts) and not for comments (= replies which are something entirely different on these projects). Friendica doesn't even have that; a pair of BBcode tags is needed for a Mastodon-style content warning, and AFAIK, this isn't documented anywhere.
#
Long #
LongPost #
CWLong #
CWLongPost #
FediMeta #
FediverseMeta #
CWFediMeta #
CWFediverseMeta #
BlockingMeta #
BlocklistMeta #
CWBlocklistMeta
