this post was submitted on 11 Jan 2024
0 points (50.0% liked)

Fediverse

27825 readers
297 users here now

A community to talk about the Fediverse and all it's related services using ActivityPub (Mastodon, Lemmy, KBin, etc).

If you wanted to get help with moderating your own community then head over to [email protected]!

Rules

Learn more at these websites: Join The Fediverse Wiki, Fediverse.info, Wikipedia Page, The Federation Info (Stats), FediDB (Stats), Sub Rehab (Reddit Migration), Search Lemmy

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.blahaj.zone/post/7477620

Transitive defederation -- defederating from instances that federate with Threads as well as defederating from Threads -- isn't likely to be an all-or-nothing thing in the free fediverses. Tradeoffs are different for different people and instances. This is one of the strengths of the fediverse, so however much transitive defederation there winds up being, I see it as overall as a positive thing -- although also messy and complicated.

The recommendation here is for instances to consider #TransitiveDefederation: discuss, and decide what to do. I've also got some thoughts on how to have the discussion -- and the strategic aspects.

(Part 7 of Strategies for the free fediverses )

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago (12 children)

no thanks. no need to technology a kneejerk reaction to nonexistent problem.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I mean, this would mean that the most rabidly anti-federation instances would wall themselves off from instances that are okay with giving Meta a chance, so it would reduce the drama somewhat. I wouldn't mind no longer seeing all the endless doomsaying.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

That's a good point, it would get a lot of very rabid users out of a fair few instances.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (11 replies)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago (3 children)

Splitting the fediverse in half just to get back at Meta is an awful idea.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 months ago

For instances which choose to intentionally mirror or otherwise make available threads content on instances which defederated threats, instances which know about and are deliberately circumventing the fediblock on those other instances it does indeed make sense though. Keep in mind when I talk about it I'm specifically talking about instances who are intentionally trying to circumvent the fediblocks by a coordinated effort, not just that they federate with threads.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago

Plus it wouldn't "get back at" Meta anyways. If their goal is to prevent or defend against some sort of EEE approach (nevermind how little indication their is that that is Meta's motivation for federating), then splitting the target into two smaller groups is perfect. They can easily do something about the one half, then claim that in addition to them, one of the two big camps of the fediverse already supports their new Meta-led protocol, in turn claiming the other half is silly for refusing to adhere to standards.

As in: Don't split the standard into two that are then easier to de-standardize if you are interested in standards.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago

it's not about getting back at meta. it's about protecting communities.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (7 children)

I'll be honest, if this gets adopted I'm out.

Most of these ideas are ridiculous in how they desperately build up windmills to handle a surplus of lances among some fediverse users, but this genuinely applies the very thing you - completely out of nowhere - assume Meta would do to what you're doing: EEE.

You're trying to strong-arm users of AP into your modified version usage guidelines for it entirely to suffocate anyone disagreeing.

That's despicable, even as just an idea.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago

exactly, they don't even have a definitive roadmap yet. most of the instances would block threads anyway if they ever make a decision that could EEE fediverse. blocking instances that federate with threads is kind of a bad move.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago

The good news is that none of the large instances are going for these insane policies. Small instances and solo instances can defederate themselves into irrelevance all they want, just like beehaw did.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago (6 children)

I can understand defederating from Threads, but transitive defederation is bordering on insanity.

This will do nothing but exert peer pressure onto instances that wish to remain impartial. Transitive defederation will play right into Meta's hands by fragmenting the Fediverse further.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

“You’re either with us or you’re against us”

— level-headed, fair-acting groups of people throughout history

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago

Only a sith deals in absolutes.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago

also blocking any instance that federates with an instance hosting harassers and hate groups – provides even stronger protection.

Even safer, unplug your router.

Y’all notice that things always talk about “user safety” and such but never detail just how the NAZIS at Threads will continue to interact with their users when the whole-ass domain is blocked.

This is just another purity test.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I understand the argument for servers blocking Threads/Meta. It doesn't strike me as the right choice for every server, but it's clearly a good choice for some servers. Threads doesn't moderate the way many fediverse servers would like their peers to, and Meta is generally an ill-behaved company. Blocking it is appropriate for servers emphasizing protection for vulnerable users, and inappropriate for servers trying to be big and open. The fediverse is great because people can choose what's right for them.

I do not, however understand the argument for blocking servers that do not block Threads and I think the article could be improved with a more thorough explanation. Maybe there's something I'm missing about the mechanics at work here, but isn't one's own server blocking Threads enough to keep Threads users from being able to interact?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago (3 children)

It's good feedback, thanks -- I thought I had enough of explanation in the article but maybe I should put in more. Blocking Threads keeps Threads userws from being able to directly interact with you, but it doesn't prevent indirect interactions: people on servers following quoting or replying to Threads posts, causing toxicity on your feeds (often called "second-hand smoke"); hate groups on Threads encouragiingtheir followers in the fediverse to harass people; and for people who have stalkers or are being targeted by hate groups Threads, replies to your posts by people who have followers on Threads going there and revealing information.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago

Why not judge these instances on their own merit though? If what you say becomes true and is so problematic and rampant that it needs addressing, you can block that instance. But doing so preemptively seems petty and counterproductive at best.

What if there is an instance that selectively reposts from Threads only decent, thoughtful discussions?

Oh and as a side note; if you're worried about stuff getting more mainstream, toxic and polarized that's kinda inevitable if you want more people using the fediverse, that's just how it is when lots of differently thinking people are in one place.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago

and revealing information

It’s already available publicly without having to log in.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago

What about non-meta toxicity? Does the same argument apply for all sources of toxicity? And to what degree does transitivity apply?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago

I swear to god the conversation around Meta joining the fediverse has been one of the most annoying things I've had to read about in a while.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago (3 children)

We should defederate with any server that has less than 7 degrees of separation with Meta. We can call it the Kevin Bacon rule.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I mean if it is really transitive then we should defederate with any server that can be connected to Meta with a finite length path

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago

That includes your own server. 😮

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago

I just went ahead and defederated with my own brain. This way I never have to worry about Meta sludge ruining my life by existing on my screen.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago (6 children)

I'm not so sure that this sort of divisive policy is healthy for the Fediverse. ActivityPub is meant to connect communities, not split them apart. I feel like this is just going to cause even more fragmentation at a time when ActivityPub can really be showing off its capabilities.

I imagine this would dissuade further adoption by other communities.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago (6 children)

Yeah, strong arming instances to do something or another based on a personal preference I thought was meta's job, not the fediverses.

The entire point is that each instance should decide for themselves. If they want to defederate with me because I haven't made up my mind yet, then so long I guess, to me that says more about them then it does Meta.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago (4 children)

As long as Meta can't infect the rest of the fediverse, or track or monetize it...fine. I just never, ever want Meta shit on my timeline.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

So don't subscribe to Meta-hosted communities?

Lots of Fediverse instances let you block whole instances, too, so you could personally block them. Problem solved.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago (2 children)

I've learned that there's a huge number of people on lemmy who prefer government regulation to self control. I had an argument with a guy the other day who wants $12 lattes banned instead of simply not buying them. Apparently making something available is the same as putting a gun to your head and forcing you to buy it.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago

or track or monetize it

Meta doesn't need federation to track or monetize anything.

I just never, ever want Meta shit on my timeline.

You can personally block them. You don't have to tell your admin to defederate the entire instance or defederate from other instances who choose not to.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago

How would Meta “infect” anything? Do you really think Meta is producing self-replicating things that jump from person to person?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago (4 children)

What sort of "Meta shit" would you possibly expect to appear on your timeline?

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›