If they have different ideas, it's because they are confused about how it works. There's only 1 way it's ever going to work. There's no debate to be had. No one gets to control the Fediverse, and no one needs permission to join it. That is inherent in it's fundamental design.

[–] kaffiene@lemmy.world -2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

No they're not confused. I've seen a lot of these discussions on Mastodon. They don't misunderstand the tech, they're actively trying to curate a community.

[–] thenexusofprivacy@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Exactly. There's a core disagreement about whether making a public post means consenting to it being used for all purposes without consent (the multiple battles about consent-based search), but relatively few people are confused about whether bad actors will use it without consent.

[–] kaffiene@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

Yeah the people throwing up their hands about ppl not understanding the tech are raging at a strawman. It's also a BS argument that acceptable behaviour is only what the tech allows.

[–] veniasilente@lemm.ee 0 points 9 months ago

There’s a core disagreement about whether making a public post means consenting to it being used for all purposes without consent

Wouldn't this better be served by implementing per-post licensing, rather than mixing federation into it? After all, most of the real issue is people not accepting the fact that, regardless of federation, bad actors can do bad things with their content. Federation is not gonna change that, but at least licensing posts would allow you a legal avenue to pursue, which currently doesn't seem to exist.

This post licensed under CC BY-NC-SA.