@sugarcheri I don't know precisely what @stux is subtooting in this thread, if anything, but sure, I agree that Fediblock is, in fact, a recommendation, not a mandate.
The subtext I read is that Stux is getting pressure from someone to block some bad actor, or this third party will block mstdn.social. I understand the unhappiness about this, and that this third party may be communicating it poorly, but ultimately, just like Stux' position, it's their right to take their position.
@sugarcheri @stux (I also mostly don't agree with "threaten to or block an instance just for them not blocking one other instance" - but there is an argument for "this instance explicitly never blocks anyone" being a red flag, as is "this instance knowingly/actively interacts a lot with bad actors and refuses to block them". But it's definitely more complicated / nuanced than "your blocklist must match mine" IMO.)
@tw @sugarcheri@mstdn.social @stux I'm on an instance that doesn't block unless there is a complaint. I think your statement is misunderstanding about how federation works. You are making many assumptions, the main one is that the organizers of block lists don't have agendas of their own. I mean by that logic I should be inundated with Nazis and racists. I don't think I have ever seen a post from an obvious Nazi, and most of the racists I have personally blocked have been on Gargon instances which are immune from fediblock listing anyway. Even if I go to the federated feed I don't see these things you claim I should be seeing. And if I did, I'd block them.
Fediblock seems to be largely a list of decisions users or admins could make themselves, combined with ego trips by the organizers. (Asking for due process is harassment. Disagreement is harassment. Providing evidence that an alleged event did not occur is harassment. Getting angry for being treated badly is harassment.)
So yes, the instance I'm on its blocked by some instances because I might have a chance of seeing something I have never seen. Pretty scary.
