Nobody can stop you from using the same email address (ie identity) on a different mailing list.
I remember there being an attempt to make implement chat using the IMAP protocol. I'm blanking on the name of it.
If you use an address under someone elses domain, they can. If you use your own domain, you can do that in the fediverse too - with the caveat that with email both range of offerings to do this without selfhosting and technical portability are better. (although the fediverse side of things hopefully will improve)
> I remember there being an attempt to make implement chat using the IMAP protocol.
Deltachat
I suppose that's true. Google can ban a gmail account that is inappropriate on a Google Groups list, or a university can ban a student's account that represents the university inappropriately. Those are narrow cases, though. It's not in the same ball park as a mod deciding to ban someone. An instance for just the account seems the best option, but I don't know the devs' intentions.
Shouldn't this mean a ban on one instance allows you to still access other instances? That was not the case here. Even moving the account was not permitted after the ban.
Not on the instance that's your "account provider" so to speak. (the obvious difference with reddit is that reddit.com as central "provider" for accounts exists)
> Even moving the account was not permitted after the ban.
According to the thread, the admin re-enabled the account so they could move.
OP was even permitted to migrate their followers and setup a redirect after reaching out to the mods.
Your not entitled to free hosting by an instance, if they object to your content or actions they will ban you.
That's the thing I find noteworthy about the incident. I guess it's a disagreement with the definition of "decentralized." I suppose the mods were kind enough to allow it after appeal, but I don't see why they should be involved in the decision. I would expect it to be the minimum functionality to remain.
Go use Briar if you want a fully decentralized social network.
The title for the official site (https://joinmastodon.org/) states:
"Mastodon - Decentralized social media"
Also, I was using the root commenter's terminology, not my own interpretation. I would lean more towards your definition. It seems nobody can agree...
Sure, those are federated, but unless your running your own server ala Brier then it's not decentralized.
Most people do not need full decentralization though, a trusted instance run by a competent administration is sufficient. Burning battery and data to run a server on a mobile device is not optimal.
Paying for ongoing identity services is a nonstarter for most individuals.
But there ARE solutions that don't involve allowing someone else to be able to hold your identity hostage.
> If you apply the "Mastodon instance is a Subreddit" model, it makes a lot more sense.
Doesn't that model fail because Mastodon presents a view that everyone is connected to everyone else? Can you not cross-instance reply to people's posts? That kind of fails the subreddit model.
If you apply the "Mastodon instance is a Subreddit" model, it makes a lot more sense.
You can start to see why Mastodon views more decentralized moderation as part of the creation process, and that's important. At the same time, the concept can't really exist in the user experience on Twitter, by design.
Still, there's much more to it than even that...
It's such early days with new social media that IMO the specific mental models people apply will make a huge difference in how they interpret the experience that unrolls before them...and when their interpretation of a discouraging event based on a broad model goes viral, it raises a ton of dust in the form of fears / doubts.