Yeah, don’t listen to anybody who says “they can’t fine me or sue me if I’m in a different state” or “they can’t do anything about it if they win.” Of course we don’t know who they’ll target when they start enforcing the law, and it’s possible that the law will be found unconstitutional … still, they can fine you, and they can sue, so if you decide not to geoblock them yet make sure you’re thinking through the risks.

I haven’t seen anything yet on how strong a defense geoblocking Mississippi will be in practice. Bluesky obviously thinks it puts them in a stronger position than not geoblocking, but at this point we really don’t know.

It’s ignorant how you don’t realize that Spark and Blacksky have built their own stacks on AT Protocol.

Most do but not all. And similarly most of the replies on Mastodon show up here but not all. So to follow the entire conversation you have to look in both places.

Thanks for the update. It really is exhausting, and depressing; you’re right about Wyoming being next, and there’s loads of others out there as well.

And It really is our fight to. Laws like this are part of a worldwide attack on independent social media, as well as trans and queer people, people looking for reproductive health care, youth in general, and sex workers. It’s a really challenging situation.

yeah it really is tiring and depressing. It isn’t clear what the risks really are right now, and how that might change over time. It’s also not completely clear how much geoblocking will reduce the risks’ at least with the Online Safety Act, regulators said earlier this year that geoblocking is sufficient – although of course they could change their minds at some point. Really hard to know what to do …

Joys of federation. https://lemmy.blahaj.zone/post/30731823/16032284

Other apps can ignore the geoblock. From the Bluesky announcement:

This decision applies only to the Bluesky app, which is one service built on the AT Protocol. Other apps and services may choose to respond differently.

Yeah. Interesting to think if there are ways to get around that problem. Still, very interesting work @rozodru@lemmy.world, and great idea splitting it out into an extension!

Yep. Ryan (the only BridgyFed dev at the time) really did absorb the feedback and changed direction, and Anuj also gets the importance of consent.

wafrn and Hubzilla both do this. But in general, developers of most ActivityPub-based platforms prefer to focus on AP, and already have a lot on their plate; Bluesky wants to focus on AT, and similarly has a lot on their plate; and most users don’t actually care that much … so nobody’s likely to prioritize it.

Yep. But, even though I didn’t suggest it, I didn’t explicitly say that it didn’t mean global blocklists. So I clarified it, and added a footnote with more detial.

As Instance-level federation decisions reflect norms, policies, interpretations, and (sometimes) strategy discusses, opinions differ on the definition of “bad actor.” So the best approach is probably going to present the admin of a new instance with a range of recommendations to choose between based on their preference. Software platforms should provide an initial vetted list (along with enough information for a new admin to do something sensible), and hosting companies and third-party recommenders should also be able provide alternatives.

Yes, at least on Lemmy. It’s the icon with two boxes.

No, as the article says at the very beginning, it’s that I think a big reason that fediverse isn’t growing is its failure to deal with safety.

Nonsense. Instance blocklists are used across the fediverse today. They’re certainly not a perfect solution but they have the advantage of actually existing. See Blocklists in the fediverse for a lot more discussion.

Fediblockhole does something along those lines for on Mastodon … not sure if there’s an equivlaent in the Lemmy world.

Politico is known for its bias, but I’d say this is a fairly accurate article – Alfred is an outstanding reporter. But you’re certainly right, this is an issue that cuts across party lines.

They don’t, at least not from your instance.

I can’t speak for others but yes, I want a fediverse that doesn’t have white supremacists and fascists.

Indeed, the entire point is that instances should decide for themselves – I say it multiple times in the article and I say it in the excerpt. If they think that you federating with Meta puts them at risk, then they should defederate. And yes, it says more about the instances making the decisions than it does about Meta – Meta’s hosting hate groups and white supremacists whether or not people defederate or transitively defederate.

It’s good feedback, thanks – I thought I had enough of explanation in the article but maybe I should put in more. Blocking Threads keeps Threads userws from being able to directly interact with you, but it doesn’t prevent indirect interactions: people on servers following quoting or replying to Threads posts, causing toxicity on your feeds (often called “second-hand smoke”); hate groups on Threads encouragiingtheir followers in the fediverse to harass people; and for people who have stalkers or are being targeted by hate groups Threads, replies to your posts by people who have followers on Threads going there and revealing information.