Question one -- alright, I gotta ask: When the second federation is set up, are people gonna call it "another Mastodon" or by whatever name the setter-upper sets for it, regardless?

Because if the second fed's essentially the same codebase minus, like, Nazis and the "noagenda" types with the "all free speech all the time WOO" and a possible white supremacist core, I'm there, bb.

Second question, guesses acceptable: How hard is it to start a fed?

@sydneyfalk The software is not really "built" to do that. You'd have to make a wihtelisted mode to build a new federation.

There is but one federation atm. =(

I thought about it and proposed something like this.

Saying "I rape babies" would have gone down better.

@sydneyfalk Basically, the Internet Lynch Mob™ came and said essentially:

* You're being "exclusionary"

* The federation is "here to stay"

* "I wouldn't join" from lots of queer folk

* "What are the exclusion criteria"

And so on.

I proposed basically a network that whitelists on ballot. It's the only way I can think of to make a system like that work and keep out folks like no agenda social dot com.

@Elizafox @sydneyfalk

you *were* being exclusionary, you specifically said "you must be *THIS* weird to join the second federation"

Mastodon is about being all kinds of weird

if you can't tolerate my weirdness you are just as bad as the people you are trying to block

j/s

@awilfox @Elizafox @sydneyfalk whats all this about a second federation? I agree with you that this is a problem, but I dont see how a second federation is a practical way to fix it.

—
I think that a fork with enhanced blocking abilities is probably what most people want.

—
I am all for the confederation, where instances dont have to talk, but I think that total fragmentation is not a good step for the platform.