My summary understanding of the discourse thus far:
Hackers.town is run by someone who's in the infosec profession and has had to comply with FBI information requests in the past, and I guess made a really shitty joke in reference to this fact as part of a presentation? The fediverse has taken this to mean that they're an FBI informant as a result.
https://hackers.town/@thegibson/101694354135726418

This makes me about a lot of things...

The fediverse seems eager to soapbox about the dangers of federation with these folks, but isn't willing to follow that line of thinking to its obvious end conclusion.

If anyone who complies with FBI demands is in effect a fed, wouldn't that mean all the FBI has to do to cripple and destroy a fediverse node is to make a data request of that node?

@mawr
What set Mastodon apart from other media is decentralization. That state of off the grid also means no cops. If one can't protect their users from this basic threat, then they can fuck off.

@danishcookies
If your admin says they can protect you from a federal government and your instance is open to federation without a whitelist, your admin is lying to you.

There are cops on the fediverse, and nothing short of going universally to a whitelist only federation model will change that.

...and even that wouldn't last very long.

@mawr
At the very least try to. I'm not saying it is to be guaranteed. I'm saying this must stay a taboo and should face harsh criticism from the people.

@mawr
Even if they are here they need to know the likes of them will be purged the moment they show themselves or anyone who affiliate with them.

@danishcookies

Of course. And they likely are aware of that, which is why none of the actual feds will ever make their affiliations publicly known.

@mawr
Which is why whenever there's a leak, you need to pry it open and burn it alive so no one would think of doing that shit in the future.

@mawr
The point here is the normalization of these situations. There must be consequences for those who affiliate with cops, be it passive or active.

@danishcookies
My point stands. You are supporting the weaponization of negative group bias. All the fed has to do to shut down any instance is spread the rumor that the admin of said instance is a fed.

It can't be conclusively proven one way or the other, so it's effectively moot

@mawr
@mawr
If people are angry about this, let them be. If people wants to mob around these fuckers they have the right to. Their privacy is in risk of compromise and their community is also at risk. They have the right to be angry.

@danishcookies
Of course they do-- but we're not talking about whether or not people have the right to be angry.

We're talking about why taking action demanded by that anger could in fact be playing right into the hands of the very people that anger is directed at. My argument is that it's a bad idea to do so.

Your anger is valid, but I strongly disagree with the course of action your anger is encouraging.