@BeAware@social.beaware.live: exactly
@erik the programming behind the Mastodon platform is all about broadcasting information out without much in the way of control over who gets it.
You can not block those actors on this platform, unfortunately. It's simply not how they structured the system here, and it's really important for users to realize that.
Effectively, if you participate here, they will have access to it.
I criticize that design, but it is what it is. Other platforms like BlueSky might be better about this, but it's how this platform decided to operate.
@Hyolobrika @volkris @BeAware I am on a single user instance, I have blocked my instance from threads.net and since your posts I am considering going private-only for my posts. Thanks.
@erik even if you block your instance from threads.net, the way the protocol works your content can still make its way to them.
Again, I think it's really important that users realize how little control they have over content on this platform. Simple blocking like that doesn't solve the problem, and you remain vulnerable.
@Hyolobrika @BeAware@social.beaware.live
@Hyolobrika yeah, there are a few other platforms that didn't have these problems.
IMO, the key is focusing on users instead of instances. ActivityPub chose to put the control in the hand of instances instead of users, but other platforms are user-first.
That makes the difference.
@volkris@qoto.org NB I know you just used it as an example but don't think Bluesky specifically is at all better when it comes to this particular point. If anything it's worse since everything is public by default there and you don't defederate from anyone AFAIK.
@vetehinen yeah, after your reply I went back and skimimed the docs again, and I think you're right.
It looks like BlueSky emphasizes giving users control over their content and yet admits that they don't think they can really do anything to enforce this.
I think the Spritely project is meant to fix that.
IIRC it used to be called “OcapPub“.