Thread

1. advisedwang · 1790624810 · focus · HN ↗

   > No channel modes and no channel operators, which is a decision rather than a gap: a global channel is owned by nobody, so there is nobody to be an operator of it. Blocking is per person and per instance instead

   That's completely unworkable. Lets say I create #some_minority, and people from many different servers join. Some shithead comes and starts screaming slurs at us. Now the admin for every server must block that person. Multiply that by every channel, and every admin is responsible for moderating the entire ecosystem. The only way they can do this is with shared blocklists, which have been a nightmare on mastodon.

   1. xingped · 1790629795 · focus · HN ↗

      If this is really distributed, then off the top of my head I imagine you could possibly make some sort of reputation-based filter list wherein trusted admins can subscrbe to each other's filter lists such that when one admin blocks are user, it quickly propagates to other admins' lists. Somewhat similar to how email domain spam block lists work.

      1. esseph · 1790641356 · focus · HN ↗

         That would quickly get abused and cartels would form over the larger servers about who has access and where.

         1. xingped · 1790648233 · focus · HN ↗

            Yes, but the point being "trusted". If the community decides a particular admin/group/server is unjustly handing out bans, then they could unsubscribe from that list.

            1. esseph · 1790648319 · focus · HN ↗

               But the server is attached to the channel, and communities form around them.
      2. advisedwang · 1790703629 · focus · HN ↗

         That's basically what they do on mastodon. It sounds like it's a pretty bad system. With a natural, community scoped entity (channel) there is a way more responsive path to moderation.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.