If by "well maintained" you mean keeping a whitelist of instances, then yeah. But I doubt anyone is doing that because it's actually counterproductive to the concept of fediverse. By keeping a whitelist you are creating an in group and an out group and instances can live or die based on that grouping.

As for why you'd need a whitelist, you can't defend against a malicious attack if they keep spinning up new instances with bots designed to spread misinformation. The moment you ban once instance another one gets spun up. The only solution is a whitelist so all new instances are automatically blocked. Of course that works if all "normal" instances also have proper registration policies and can't become attack vectors.

If the fediverse becomes wildly popular defending the instance can become a full-time job as the open nature gives more attack vectors. Also most instances are ran by volunteers so it's probably not going to be a good time for anyone.

Do you think systems like fediseer would help with that? As I understand it's a voucher based reputation system.

Another shitstain lemmy.ml user. I will literally donate a $1k to lemmy.world if we defederate these weaksauce trolls. Blocking them one at a time is so fuckdamn annoying.

Well since they're not doing it and your aggressive othering isn't helping, how about just make it easy for people to join in on new, good things instead of setting an arbitrary bar originally achieved by zoophiles as the base level for user adoption?

I mean, if your intent is to get more people to adopt mastodon, then how about you remove all of the barriers for them to do so?

THIS is why linux will never go anywhere, the entire fuckdamn community is so high from sniffing their own farts that they have no idea how impenetrable linux is for the average person. There's an xkcd comic that illustrates it but I don't care enough about you to link it. You know the one I'm talking about, the punchline being 'and quartz, of course'.

I see so fuckdamn many of you whining about M$'s market dominance but almost never do I see any initiative to make adoption as easy as possible for your average user.

Instead I see a shitton of people like you that insist that the privilege of using such vaunted software is earned by passing a gauntlet of arbitrary and constantly changing technical challenges, and anyone who seeks to bypass that challenge not being worthy of using the software.

Gatekeeping is ReeeeEEEEeallll sexy in 2024 my guy.

Obama famously used twitter in his first election campaign to create effect. In the brief moment when I had an account, he was my only follower

There was actually a really good RFC -- if you're not familiar with these, they're normally the documents used to create most Internet standards, normally just address technical matter -- put out a while back, ".sex considered dangerous". At the time, Congress was considering passing laws to regulate obscenity on the entire Internet -- a lot of the infrastructure of which we in the US ran -- according to US social norms, because people were upset over access to pornography. While political speech is strongly-protected in the US, we do have an obscenity exception, and so pornographic content could be regulated in some forms, and had been, like on FCC-regulated broadcast radio and television. Parents were upset at this new Internet thing bringing lots of porn to their children, so the idea was "why don't we just create an adult space on the Internet and make all that adult stuff go there". And the answer here, which the RFC covers, along with some technical arguments, is that the Internet is global, and there are many different social norms around the world. You cannot just tell everyone to adopt your own. It doesn't work.

https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3675

Legal and Philosophical Problems

When it comes to sexually-explicit material, every person, court, and government has a different view of what's acceptable and what is not. Attitudes change over time, and what is viewed as appropriate in one town or year may spark protests in the next. When faced with the slippery nature of what depictions of sexual activity should be illegal or not, one U.S. Supreme Court justice blithely defined obscenity as: "I know it when I see it".

In the U.S.A., obscenity is defined as explicit sexual material that, among other things, violates "contemporary community standards" -- in other words, even at the national level, there is no agreed-upon rule governing what is illegal and what is not. Making matters more knotty is that there are over 200 United Nations country codes, and in most of them, political subdivisions can impose their own restrictions. Even for legal nude modeling, age restrictions differ. They're commonly 18 years of age, but only 17 years of age in one Scandinavian country. A photographer there conducting what's viewed as a legal and proper photo shoot would be branded a felon and child pornographer in the U.S.A. In yet other countries and groups, the entire concept of nude photography or even any photography of a person in any form may be religiously unacceptable.

Saudi Arabia, Iran, Northern Nigeria, and China are not likely to have the same liberal views as, say, the Netherlands or Denmark. Saudi Arabia and China, like some other nations, extensively filter their Internet connection and have created government agencies to protect their society from web sites that officials view as immoral. Their views on what should be included in a .sex domain would hardly be identical to those in liberal western nations.

Those wildly different opinions on sexual material make it inconceivable that a global consensus can ever be reached on what is appropriate or inappropriate for a .sex or .adult top-level domain. Moreover, the existence of such a domain would create an irresistible temptation on the part of conservative legislators to require controversial publishers to move to that domain and punish those who do not.

The shoe was on the other foot there -- it was us talking about our government limiting what other people in the world have access to, but the point, I think, remains the same.

I think you really need to go look up what "extra judicial" means.

Also, you notice the quote doesn't mention America at all? You seem to be of the very Angry Americans so perhaps you're not aware but one UK citizen who has been convicted for this before, and founded a now banned organisation that existed to start these kinds of fights, was tweeting incitement from Cyprus (where he had gone to avoid yet another court appearance)

To anyone in the UK the quote you've given says "Tommy Robinson is gonna get nicked"