There is a lot of back history involved. Some admins don't like the terms of service used at Qoto -- **specifically some quite Libertarian statements** on it which I personally have made motions to change.
In some other cases it's because this instance did not block some other instance which they found deplorable and a nest of iniquity, etc.
I have been out in Diplomatic missions in the past, but not much resulted -- other than me sending detailed correspondence and sometimes being :
* told to not contact them again.
* or losing my local account at that instance for the attempt.
* or simply getting a polite rebuff on the attempt, which appears the most positive result.
#QOTO is **perceived negatively in some quarters** - and that has implications on **who sees your posts here as well**.
See these two blog posts for detailed info on some of my past attempts :
https://write.tedomum.net/rgx/when-you-discover-your-instance-is-blocked
https://write.tedomum.net/rgx/todon-nl-admin-reacts-to-polite-inquiries
>todon dot nl
Wait a minute! Why are you communicating with that user on gameliberty? It’s clearly a rightwinger or even alt-right.
>2 days later
Your account has been suspended and all of your toots and your uploaded media files have been irreversibly removed from this server and servers where you had followers.
They… that… they didn’t just delete his account. They impersonated him, spamming other instances with fake Delete messages, to trick them into helping retroactively censor him, regardless of their ToSes. Because he may have spoken with someone who was likely to be a wingnut.
…
THIS IS WHY WE SHOULD BE USING PUBLIC KEYS JESUS CHRIST
> we should be using public keys
Already the case, but stored and controlled by the server of course :P
🇳🇱
That question sounds like it implies it would take effort. Presumably if the client were written correctly it would just need to be be configured once and then every post would get signed automatically.
ActivityPub would need to be reworked as a client-server model allowing self signed keys at registration and not whatever encryption the server & protocol decides.
@lanodan @thatbrickster @cy
Would it though? If the model allows for "anything" then presumably it includes the option (though not requirement) of personal key use. So not sure why the protocol would have to be reworked to **only** allow for that (or how it could be enforced as a standard even or what functional changes it might imply to do so)...
Its just thatfor servers that allow users to use their own key, and users that adopt it, then I can trust them. On servers where they dont do this or users dont employ it I would just trust those account's identity less so.
