So the most-blocked server is only blocked by 4.2% of the servers on the network. This means that, at most, only 4.2% of the admins on fedi use #fediblock, and 95.8% of them ignore #fediblock. Since FSE is the final boss of the #fediblock list, it's safer to say that at least 96.2% of the admins on fedi ignore the list. You could probably do something more thorough, say that you produce a count of instances that block at least half of the instances on the list, and this would get you a more accurate number, but I think it would still be pretty small, maybe two, three dozen.
> Because it could indeed be possible - they've lost a lot of people since the last exodus from twitter
They were never the majority on the network. I have constantly heard, since close to the beginning of FSE, "Everyone is gonna block you!" and it's mostly neurotics (who filter so heavily that they have a distorted view of what represents a majority view; "How could Nixon have won? Nobody I know voted for him.") and people playing the social-pressure game (which gives them an incentive to claim a majority), and that's a long way from "everyone".
There's also that paper about blocking that got passed around a while back. They did some analysis; I disagree with a lot of their proposals, but it's a more thorough treatment than anyone's given #fediblock until now: decentralized_web_moderation.pdf
@p@meso@thelioma@PhenomX6@Zerglingman@revvy@NEETzsche@corfiot@coolboymew >So the most-blocked server is only blocked by 4.2% of the servers on the network. Deceptive numbers. There's a bunch of instances with user count in millions and thousands of them with one user and less than 10 posts. Using that (or better yet, monthly active users) for metrics instead of separate domains would work better. FBA's crawler gets only what it could see, so that also doesn't account for instances that hide their blocklists, but accounts for mirrors (e.g. shitposter.club and soap.shitposter.club) which skew the stats a bit as well.
> There's a bunch of instances with user count in millions and thousands of them with one user and less than 10 posts.
There's a critical difference here: if you are measuring how much of the network you can interact with, then you could weigh by user count. If you are measuring how many people enact #fediblock policies, then you use the number of admins (or admin teams in the case of larger instances) that use #fediblock's list. I think most of the people on mastodon.social don't know or care about #fediblock, but the admins watch it. So if you want to know how many people actually care about it, counting servers is the best way to do that.
> so that also doesn't account for instances that hide their blocklists
A percentage of the blocklists that are hidden would be interesting, then you could extrapolate. But like I pointed out before, there's mastodon.technology (23,946 accounts, but they were all deleted by the time the instance died, so the final reported count was "0"), which still figures into the numbers on that board, but which has been dead since December.
I believe the pertinent number is "people affected by fediblock", typically as you say via their admins, even without their knowledge. I must also add there is an extra parameter: alt accounts, tho not sure that a significant number of users actually have alts.
4.2% of the admin teams. Of that 40-60%, most of them don't even know about #fediblock. I left mastodon.social because I found out that they were blocking other servers: I wasn't "blocking" gs.smuglo.li, they had been blocked on my behalf. When they were still alive, they were one of the best instances, I wouldn't have blocked them, but Gargoron blocked them and I never saw them.
> As for the mastodon - fediblock correlation, it feels like most big mastodon servers are using fediblock but I can't really say if that's true.
The ability to block instances was created by Eugen Rochko as a response to him getting trolled by gs.smuglo.li. Someone made a compilation of screenshots but I can't seem to find it.
This whole discussion is very interesting. It indicates fediblock drama is mostly that, drama. But we need to consider the number of users as you said of that 4.2%, and then active or just existing, and the shadow bans, etc. I will be more careful not to attribute fediblock too much importance from now on.
As for the mastodon - fediblock correlation, it feels like most big mastodon servers are using fediblock but I can't really say if that's true. I am still against it on principle, of course.
@corfiot@meso@thelioma@Zerglingman@p@revvy@NEETzsche@mint@coolboymew fediblock style shit harms adoption because the npcs and those who failed to integrate with either side will say "well mastodon is full of xyz I should wait for whatever jack Dorsey or my internet daddy is shilling".
I know mine is blocked by a lot who hide it. Which is exactly the goal with the instance I'm going to start when I quit this job in a month and have more time to study and for projects. I want to cause chaos in the mastodon furry scene by having them really block other instances and even though you might think it'll harm adoption, furries are reluctant to leave the plantation with "what instance should I join" before preferring Twitters dox culture anyhow. I want them to be around people they don't like as they mald, kinda like what happened with An Inconvenient Anime but online. https://youtu.be/tynKRMVGsAI
Most mastodon users probably don’t even know we exist, this tranny janny instance admin setup is just flawed. Also, Jack and Snowden being on nostr has weight, whether that’s a good thing or not.
Hellthreads happened on Twitter too. There were shitposters who would tag assloads of people in and cause rage or shitposting, and before that Skype contact dumps. I met cool people through contact dumping groups where people dumped in random people.