• Comment105@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Why? Because there are 100 or so moderately active instances with their own url? Or will you expect people who link to the fediverse to use new or obscure instances to indirectly link to things?

      • rab@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        29
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Yeah they’re not going to have a hard time at all haha

        Export a list of largest instances and put them in the firewall QOS, 5 minute job max

      • Tony Bark@pawb.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        A bit of both, actually. With such a diverse amount of instances, covering every possible type of social network, the best they’re ever going to throttle the flagships. xD

    • RaoulDook@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Actually they could do the same thing to any Fediverse link as they are with these news sites’ links. They added a 5-second delay from when a twitter user clicks the external link from a twitter post, which is garbage overall, but not “throttling” websites. Yes I skimmed the article.

      The headline seems to imply that Twitter controls the internet traffic to non-Twitter sites, which is misleading. Twitter is simply degrading the experience of their own site’s userbase, and nobody else. The rest of us can still visit the news sites that Leon Skum hates without Twitter.

    • DreamDrifter@lemmynsfw.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Why? It’s easy to get a list of federated servers, in JSON no less. In an afternoon I could build a tool to block them as they come, testing included