Yonle

When people finally get a platform where they control their own space, they often end up building the same old jail.

While it's no different from typical mainstream censorship, it's mostly done ugly than better. if said the least.

Consider some few examples:

• Nostr promises “censorship resistance,” yet some users still want to dictate how the whole network behaves.
• Mastodon, filled with Twitter refugees, has users begging for a “Reply Control” feature just like on Twitter, Facebook, or Instagram to protect their sanity. The intention is fair, but almost useless in a federated network.

Let's see the following issues: – https://github.com/mastodon/mastodon/issues/14762 – https://github.com/mastodon/mastodon/issues/8565

These two has the following demands: > Restrict replies to: > – Accounts mentioned in the post > – Accounts you follow + mentioned accounts > – Or no restriction > – Disable replies entirely

Fine idea if your platform stores everything in one place. Not fine if it’s federated.

You might clean up your comment section, but remember: other instances see everything.

These controls only work on the centralized platform

Centralized platforms can actually enforce restrictions effectively because: – Single source of truth. All posts, replies, and permissions live in one database under one admin. – One garden, one gardener. Users interact inside the same platform; nothing leaks outside. – Centralized moderation. Bans and rules apply network-wide instantly. – No federation headaches. No need to respect or reconcile policies from other servers.

Federation flips that model. Your “reply control” is local to your server. Other servers don’t care about your neat fences.

What actually happens (diagram)

Expectations:

People comment -> Your homeserver -> Your homeserver broadcasts to everyone

Reality:

Person A comments -> Person A’s instance -> Person A’s instance broadcasts to everyone (including your users)

Consequently, the concept of a fully controlled comment environment on your instance is misleading. Actions such as blocking or muting a user only alter visibility locally; other instances continue to receive and display the original content along with all associated replies.

But why did you join Mastodon in the first place?

Ask yourself: why are you here?

Why this instance? Why this community? Or did you just click the first signup link that worked?

Let’s be honest: why did you even sign up? – Was it to escape Twitter’s nonsense? – To get away from toxic algorithms? – Or because someone told you Mastodon is “censorship-resistant”?

Now, ask yourself this: why this instance? – Did you pick it because of its community, moderation, or philosophy? – Or did you just land there by accident, because a friend recommended it, or the first signup link you clicked worked?

The truth: your experience depends entirely on your instance. Filters, reply controls, or “censorship resistance” mean nothing if the admin is inactive, moderation is weak, or the fediverse dumps chaos into your feed.

If you chose poorly, you will end up in the same hell you were trying to escape.

Solution?

If you want actual control, do one of the following:

• Self-host an instance. Managed hosting exists if you don’t want to deal with administration.
• Use filters. They exist; learn and apply them.
• Switch instances. If your admin is inactive or moderation is poor, move.
• Return to Facebook. Centralized cages are still the only way to achieve a perfectly sanitized environment.