@thisismissem I really dislike how this proposal seems to double down on the model of instances over users.
I would much rather see systems where individual users can subscribe to, effectively, the moderation services they believe match the experiences they personally want here instead of relying on the opinions and choices of their own instances to impose moderation.
I really wish people acting in this space would shift to putting users first.
@thenexusofprivacy @volkris@qoto.org correct, FIRES doesn't limit itself to only providing moderation recommendations and advisories to instance admins only.
In fact, I'd probably argue that individual users, particularly those at high risk may wish to subscribe to advisories directly, and to be notified when an interaction matches an advisory or recommendation that they are subscribed to
(aside, not sure this will reach qoto.org since hachyderm doesn't federate with them from what I can tell)
@volkris I very much agree on the value of giving users better tools ... I don't think there's anything in FIRES that restricts it to be instance-only. That said I also think there's value in instance-level defaults and in some cases instance-level decisions. Illegal content's a situation where instance-level decisions are needed; instance-level blocks of blocking Nazi, terf, and white-supremacist are another situation where it's valuable. If people personally want to federate with Nazi, terf, and white-supremacist sites, they they can find instances that don't block them.
@thisismissem