He is not relevant

he surely knows the tech. what's concerning is how he's blocking anyone trying to contribute to work on it if it doesn't fit his agenda. very concerning and self centred. a total waste.

unfortunately he's not one of the interesting co-author of the protocol. too self centred.

define these people. define these instances. etc etc

what's your point? anyone can do a screen shot and share it too.

if you want to have a conversation about the content of my post, please keep it on topic : without authorised fetch and a domain blocked at the instance level, the content is pushed.

if you have technical knowledge to add to this or can correct me about the protocol I'm glad to hear it. if not I'm not interested.

Yes and that’s their right.

But thankfully they don’t impose anything to anyone. You had me worried for a minute.

where did you see that the fedipact main purpose was to impose defederation? that would be rich.

I came to the fediverse in 2017, so nothing to do with reddit or meta or twitter.

The fact is here, we have a choice. So you do you.

On mastodon I have an account on an instance that blocked meta and is using authorised fetch (so the proper way to block a domain) : great, my content won't go there or on any other blocked domains : it's my choice.

I have another account on another instance that didn't blocked meta : great, my content will be shared with threads users and I will be able to browse threads.

Choice, isn't it great?

protecting your content from being pushed to an instance that you though your blocked.
protecting your content from being shared where you though it won't because of the way things are worded.

yes, on Mastodon when a user block an instance, it's more like a mute than a block. Your posts will still be available to them, but you won't see their content.

The only solution if you want to protect your content from being shared on an instance is to block it at the instance level AND that the instance use Authorised Fetch.

Not all instances have this feature on.

it's not because a product is not made in a industrial fashion that it's de facto good, sustainable or eco friendly. it's like calling natural stuff better than chemical stuff. it's just a common bias.

you can't get meat without giving a lot of proteins to an animal. at the end if you end up eating this protein instead of giving it to the animal to grow tissue you always will win in efficiency.

some will argue that we can't eat grass. that's right we can't. but with all things considered if we eat proteins from plants we can digest, the balance will always be positive, regarding CO2 emissions, natural ressources being wasted like soil and water, and naturally the cruelty.

some will argue that prairies are stocking CO2. yes they are, but the cattle growing on them will produce more.

some will argue that eating soy will give you boobs. I'm sorry but it won't. too bad if it's boobs you were looking for.

etc etc. the scientific literature is quite explicit on this matter. all that I know is that if we decided to switch to a total plant based alimentation right now, we would need a period of transition were cattle or fishing will still be needed in some specific countries with specific ecosystem.

of course, but in this situation it's pretty simple. how do you act with the choice given.