@drsbaitso @Kudusch yep.
And to me, even assuming the problem actually is that mas.to federates with more instances of ill repute, the responses that I should switch to a different instance seems to ignore the fundamental nature of the problem.
And if we are to continue viewing "just block problematic instances" as the solution, does that not lead to consolidation eventually? People will flock to "safe" instances and asking folks to manage their own is just too much.
@drsbaitso @Kudusch I'm increasingly of the mind that the decentralization here, while a cool concept, doesn't actually solve many issues with social media. In fact, it makes the social parts *much* harder because, functionally, interactions are closer to peer-to-peer than they are public.
I think too many folks are hanging their hat on it being some sort of panacea and aren't meaningfully engaging with the core problems it presents.
@TechConnectify Decentralization was meant to solve the problem of one entity owning the network, and doing whatever they want with it(as with twitter). I also think Mastodon did it in a shit way(AFAIK likes/favorites aren't federated, and now this comments thing), which makes using it so much harder(like seeing something that is def a comment but the above posts wont load).
A different problem of social media is filtering and moderation, only now money isn't being made and servers are not trying to make profits(again, AFAIK), so it becomes less an option for someone to be paid to moderate it, and moderating have no explicit guidelines(because, every instance is on its own and can decide what it wants), meaning something that you might be ok with is not fine for someone else(and vice versa). As of filtering, you no longer must have an algorithm, since you don't need to keep people hooked for longer(also people are usually against it here for some reason), which means everything is thrown at you unless you act(i agree, it sucks)...
Anyway, shit sucks
