If you believe the Fediverse should operate in an "opt-in" manner, why don't you create or join Fediverse servers that block everything by default, and only federate with servers that are deliberately whitelisted?
This isn't a rhetorical question. I'm genuinely curious.
@atomicpoet@fediversenews You are referencing a known corporate backed instance. When I joined Mastodon it was because the vast majority of the fediverse was people who believed (that's what they said) in open, free, non-corporate backed, no advertising social media. Large publicly traded, profit driven, shareholder controlled entities are now entering this space. Going forward it may be necessary (for me) to initially block. I will be migrating.
@noondlyt@fediversenews Okay, but I'm referencing everything that creates debate over opt-in/opt-out: bridges, bots, search engines, servers, federation, etc.
Every time there's a debate about what's allowable, someone says, "I didn't opt in".
However, if you're not running a server that blocks everything by default, except for whitelisted servers, you're not opting into anything. By default, when a server "sees" another server, they are federated.
@atomicpoet@fediversenews I am not happy that the same protocol is used by every corporation I do business with online. This should not be the same experience. Opt in is consent. This place is not a corporation. When it starts operating like one, it will be time to leave. My question for you is this: Why do you think they chose opt out as default?
@noondlyt@fediversenews Yes, opt-in is consent. What exactly have you consented to? When have you specifically ever consented to a malicious server receiving your content? When have you explicitly consented to people, many of them bad actors, following you and sending you messages?
Regarding why the Fediverse-at-large prefers opt-out by default, it's pretty apparent to me: software engineers and server admins prize visibility and discoverability over safety and consent.
@Chris Trottier No one is stopping someone from having an opt-in server. In fact, if you truly want privacy, you might want to check out Streams, where users can use the opt-in method themselves. Only stuff you allow in will be let in, and you can even make your posts private and visible to only people you select. So opt-in servers are already available. It's just not widely known at the moment.
@atomicpoet@fediversenews I agree with you on your last point. I have not here yet. Meta and Bluesky are known entities. They are concerned with one thing - $. How these federations are handled should address the fact that many people now here found corporations making terrible decisions at the expense of the people that use their product. I understand that any and all can join the Fediverse, but corporations are not people and we should remain skeptical.
For legal liability reasons, I hope whatever server you join is run by a corporation, not a private individual. Lawsuits happen on the Internet, and without protection, they can inflict a lot of damage. Since the Fediverse assumes “opt out”, this is a particular concern.
Second, if I were to join a server, I would be concerned about how they’re paying the bills. Running a server can be costly, especially if that server allows open registrations. If a server can’t sustain itself financially, be very worried.
There’s a reason why my own server is closed. I spend $10/month to run it.
@atomicpoet@fediversenews I donate voluntarily to my server and 3 others regularly. Not quite sure why you would think I would sign up on a corporate server. It is the antithesis of what I am looking for. The Corporations are the problem, not the solution. #Myanmar
@noondlyt@fediversenews Corporations come in many forms. Currently, the one you use is run through a non-profit corporation. Others like cosocial.ca and social.coop run as co-operative corporations. And yet others like twit.social and me.dm run as for-profit corporations.
The reason I avoid servers run by private individuals has nothing to do with profit and more to do with legal liability and financial sustainability. Put simply, I don't want my admin to wreck their life due to some asshole who does something untoward or even illegal. I also want to ensure that the funds I spend are well-managed.
I speak from experience. Last year, I spent over $2,000 on various Fediverse services, keeping certain servers afloat.
@atomicpoet@fediversenews Non-profit or not for profit being key. I have the utmost respect for anyone that endeavors to run their own instance(s). It is a full time job in many cases and not easy. The less glamorous side of federation. No one should run themselves into the ground mentally or financially.
@atomicpoet@fediversenews I'm thinking about it for the micro instance I run, but I'm concerned about it being labour intensive, as my public account for work stuff is on there.
As it is, I block servers (etc) the users (all four of them) might not want, and unblock them if they want me to.
@atomicpoet I have never understood why this was even an issue. If you insist on controlling, or being protected from what goes in or out of an instance, than join an instance that does that openly and enjoy your bubble of choice. Done.