@mngrif I was kind of surprised by this, but visited and can confirm -- their About-More page has their blocking list and it's pretty extensive.
They list Qoto, and the justification seems to be the same as mastodon.technology -- for federating with instances they disapprove of.
Looks like it might not be due to this latest complaints thread about the subscribing to public posts discussed in other thread yesterday.
🇳🇱
The irony of this whole fiasco is if we had forked from any software other than mastodon it would have been a non issue. Protected accounts are uniquely mastodon and not parto f the ActivityPub standard. That means on other servers (like misskey) the feature I added is the default. So no one would have batted an eye.
Yes, and technically, analyzing it down to the fundamentals -- all this is doing is showing posts made to the whole network with a privacy set to "Public'.
As in, not the slightest restriction on who can see it or when. Public means Public, but people think that they are safer and more private by controlling who can "follow"their Public posts?
On the other hand, most people would like to have a wider circle to reach with their posts, so they use the Public mode, instead of Followers-Only for example. Which would be respected and not show here or anywhere else, unless the interested reader was a "follower" of the poster.
@design_RG
Yea exactly.. to me it isnt a violation of THEIR privacy, but rather not having a subscription is a violation of OUR privacy. A person has a right to privacy regarding who's post they want to read. If i want to read some racist hate-mongerers posts, perhaps to be aware of any potential danger, i should not be forced to have to notify them that I am reading their posts (essentially what forcing people to follow does).
@mngrif