Becky (@RenewedRebecca@oldbytes.space)
Föderation EN Do 01.08.2024 19:57:55
@phurd that’s not what I said, but thanks for playing.
Patrick $8 
(@phurd@infosec.exchange)
Föderation EN Do 01.08.2024 19:59:33
@RenewedRebecca you didn't say "Any user could subscribe to the blocklist that matches their situation best."?
Becky (@RenewedRebecca@oldbytes.space)
Föderation EN Do 01.08.2024 21:33:54
I also said that there’d still be a place for server-based moderation too, for example, I don’t think there’s anybody on truth.social that 90% of us want to see here.
Community-based blocklists don’t preclude server-based ones.
The problem that server-shared blocklists always runs into is that one or two really active people will inject their own politics into the process. If you have a known-TERF as one of the “trusted sources”, guess what group gets screwed?
The other problem with 100% server based blocklists is that just about nobody is going to block .social. And that particular server is pretty problematic.
Subscribing to a community-based list spreads the moderation out to a whole bunch of diverse people so that no individual user isn’t in the “well, you can just block the bad guys yourself” situation.
We’re not going to win with an either/or kind of system. It’s got to be both/and instead.
Patrick $8 (@phurd@infosec.exchange)
Föderation EN Do 01.08.2024 21:52:33
@RenewedRebecca I think Jerry's original post accurately describes the problems with both server-based and user-based moderation. The insult-to-injury portion of the issue is that the impacted users are directed to assume the responsibility of user-based moderation. So while additional user-based moderation tools may be helpful, they are also an additional barrier to entry as part of the Mastodon sign-up process and provide additional ammo to the "fedi-experts" as Jerry called them
One advantage and under-developed feature of the fediverse is migrating to another server. Improving the migration workflow will allow users to leave instances who are not using their server-based moderation tools sufficiently. This could potentially be implemented with an invite system to facilitate the conversation with users describing their experience with harassment.
Becky (@RenewedRebecca@oldbytes.space)
Föderation EN Do 01.08.2024 21:58:07
@phurd Again, since you don’t quite seem to be listening, I am not advocating for user-based moderation.
I am advocating for community-based moderation.
Heck, when signing up, a new user could be given a nice curated group of blocklists to subscribe to. We spread the moderation task across the entire community instead of placing the burden on the victims.
Making it easier to move instances would be great for a lot of reasons, but it doesn’t remotely solve the racism-on-fedi or transphobia-on-fedi problems. (Not to mention the .social lack of moderation problem.)
Patrick $8 (@phurd@infosec.exchange)
Föderation EN Do 01.08.2024 22:01:51
@RenewedRebecca Users making decisions about what blocklist to subscribe to is a burden. I consider this decision to be part of user-based moderation since it is an action taken by users individually. It's fine if you disagree about that