@kit I dunno, it could be a non-deliberate design decision, like people just didn't think of it

with glitch.social being what it is I think that's more likely (though vanilla mastodon devs, or at least gargron in particular, I could see intentionally not adding that functionality)

@Felthry glitch.social runs masto mainline? and you're on awoo anyway? (does awoo run the glitch-soc fork? which is not the same as glitch.social the instance)

in any case. i bring it up because people have been talking about wanting this for a long time

@kit awoo runs the glitch.social fork yes... and does glitch _not_ run the fork named after it????

@Felthry dev.glitch.social runs glitch-soc. glitch.social runs mainline.

@kit that's confusing

@Felthry glitch.social came first and was a place for beta-testing mainline features when bea was contributing heavily to mainline development

dev.glitch.social came later when the glitch-soc fork was being first made, to host the new fork.

@Felthry glitch-soc is named after glitch.social, glitch.social is not named after glitch-soc

@kit also I always thought the branch was called glitch.social too

@Felthry but at any rate, awoo existed before glitch-soc and i had thought it was run by garg so. that's why i thought it ran mainline.

@kit awoo has always been run by crom, and afawk gargron doesn't like the philosophy of using a domain whitelist which is awoo's main draw

@Felthry i see. i never looked much into it, i just remember there being a lot of "i'm hosting a new instance for if you want whitelisting" talk