About as effectively as Mastodon has prevented pedophiles from using and abusing it: through the thankless efforts and the abuse of volunteer moderators on major instances, and in no meaningful way anywhere else.

many mastadon instances don't federate with those other instances. Each instance is free to have their own rules

They're free to have their own rules and do what they want? That's going to make a lot of people very angry.

What does your comment even mean? A lot of people get angry about a lot of things but the solution is what exactly? Based on your statement I would assume your suggestion is "they shouldn't be free to have their own rules and do what they want" because...?

>Based on your statement I would assume your suggestion is "they shouldn't be free to have their own rules and do what they want" because...?

That question is better asked of PradeetPatel, the person who wants to figure out how to stop people from using a decentralized system.

They are free to do so even now, like Gab and Truth social or whatever.

generally, subcultures will focus themselves on their own instances, and implement moderation policies there that support their goals. as long as nobody provides sufficient consequences, any use of any software is easily possible, including organized hate on the fediverse.

if you don't want to see them, they can be mass-ignored at the stroke of a menu, by your moderation team or yourself as a user. if you don't want them to organize their own spaces, you'll have to do something more than use software.

after that, it's important to remember anyone anywhere may still see any content you post publicly.

it's worth noting there is no accepted approach to this for corporate social media, either, and it can't be resolved given the current legal and political landscape. but at least in a federated space, you get to choose your moderators, they are generally more accountable to you in a personal sense, and your instance should remain small enough that nobody will care whose speech you suppress.

Only radical leftist hate groups are allowed to use open source software, as we all know.

In the similar way we handle radical, alt-left, hate groups from abusing Mastodon.

if they could prevent that then that would defeat the entire purpose. fortunately it is federated, so you can run your instance however you please with whatever rules you want.

Federation allows operators to set their own rules, and to disconnect from other instances they don't approve of.

If you don't like how your particular instance is handling that, you can choose a different one.

Doesn’t that just fracture the audience/ users?

Effectively yes, though the general perception is that this is an advantage rather than a drawback.

Networking, telecoms, and the Internet all tend to erase space and topology. Relatonships of federation, following, muting, and blocking re-impose a topology. It's not necessarily geographic, but it exists and it profoundly affects information flows through the network.

Put another way, on both Mastodon and Twitter, there is the ability to block or mute other profiles. This creates interesting dynamics about where information does and does not flow, and who has control over that.

In the case of Mastodon, there's additional refinement to that control in that individual instances can set several levels of resistance or friction between other peer instances. Posts might simply be muted on the public timeline, or an instance might be entirely blocked. What levels of moderation are enacted and which instances are affected varies by instance. One consequence is that an instance administrator bears consequences of their own actions regarding moderation and permitted / tolerated behaviour, as other instances may determine their own interactions on account of such behaviour.

In practice, what I've noticed across several social networks, having a blocking mechanism, is that the old saw holds true: friends come and go, blocks accumulate.

In the case of Google+, a network I both participated in and studied reasonably extensively, one of the greatest predictors for whether or not an account was closed or banned was how active it was. The higher the level of activity, to a large extent, the greater the odds of it later not existing. This was based on a few snapshots I'd made and/or explorations of high-profile accounts. I suspect mechanism tended both to be burnout by some high-profile users and tendency for such usage to violate site norms (spam, abuse). It was interesting to see though.

There can't be a singular global state; fediverse (federated) and other decentralized protocols have adopted subjective moderation.

Only if you believe that email is "fractured". It's the same model. You can follow people on other instances.

Facebook is also "fractured" from Twitter, and both are "fractured" from HN and from every other forum on the internet.

As long as no one company, person, or government owns and operates the internet, it will always be "fractured".

it's a feature, not a bug.

A lot of instances (specially the bigger ones) have banned alt-right and fascist instances; most instances are either with good moderation or none at all.

Don’t join their instance, it’s that simple. That’s the whole point of an open protocol vs a single service.