Login
You're viewing the corneill.es public feed.
  • Linux and BSD are best 🐧 😈LinuxBSD@mivatter.com
    Oct 27, 2026, 1:07 AM
    The administrator on Here-Me.Social is correct.

    Ban evasion would be if "Bob" had a website and he banned "Tommy." If Tommy rejoined "Bob's" site, that would be ban evasion.

    Tommy, simply existing on the Fediverse is not ban evasion.

    That means "Tommy" can freely join "Sarah's" website. "Tommy" is not doing anything wrong. Merely existing is not rule-breaking on a decentralized network.

    Tommy also has zero way of knowing "John" blocked him. Tommy never receives a notice about "John's" actions. Tommy may have never spoken to "John" or even know "John" exists. There are, after all, thousands of websites and tens of thousands of users. Simply moving to "Sarah's" site, unaware of "John," does not count as evading anything.

    Some of you... would do better on a centralized platform. Because your expectations and ideology match that of a centralized platform.
    💬 1🔄 0⭐ 0

Replies

  • Linux and BSD are best 🐧 😈LinuxBSD@mivatter.com
    Oct 27, 2026, 1:34 AM
    Post 2 of 2

    When I first started calling out the scam groups — Israel "verified" and Gaza "verified" — over a year ago, the one thing those scammers and their original supporters kept claiming was that simply existing somehow was ban evasion. This was long before I was recently vindicated, and before Ukraine bombed Russia's data centers, which took out their operations for a few days.

    It was the most nonsensical argument. Simply existing on a decentralized platform is not ban evasion. We can argue, rightfully so, that the only thing I was evading was a wrongful dogpiling effort to wipe me off the Fediverse, which is an interesting argument for a centralized platform — because that is exactly how centralized platforms work!

    On a centralized platform like Facebook, X, YouTube, or Reddit, someone is reported, and if the report is valid, they're gone. They no longer exist, and if they rejoin, that is ban evasion.

    On a decentralized platform, simply existing is not against the rules or even how the network operates. The whole point of a decentralized network is that you cannot be shut down, swept under the rug, and made to disappear. You can create your own site or move freely throughout the network.

    Using the previous "Tommy" example, Tommy has no way of knowing what "John" has done. Tommy may not even know "John" exists, since there are thousands of websites and tens of thousands of users. So, every person claiming "Tommy" is a jerk for moving to a new site does not understand the value or function of a decentralized network. If you could prove that Tommy knew about "John" and knew about the block, but still intentionally reached out to "John," then you may have a valid argument.

    But time is also a factor. If years from now, Tommy innocently likes John's post because he doesn't even know who John is years later, that still isn't ban evasion; that's just the chaotic reality of a public web, plus the fact that most people aren't going to recall every single random anonymous person forever.

    On a traditional, centralized social media app, a ban is absolute because the entire ecosystem lives under one roof. But the Fediverse isn't a single house — it's a massive neighborhood of independent properties. A landlord locking you out of their specific apartment doesn't mean you are barred from walking down the public sidewalk or renting a room across town. Expecting every independent server owner to coordinate, enforce, and police global personal blocklists just to satisfy someone's personal grudge completely misses the point.

    If people want an environment where a single block acts as a universal restraining order across the entire digital universe, they need to log back off the Fediverse and go back to the walled gardens they're so fond of.

    Post 2 of 2 - END
    💬 0🔄 0⭐ 0