Didn't want to further derail the exploding heads vote thread, so:
What are the criteria that should be applied when determining whether to defederate from an instance? And should there be a specific process to be followed, and what level of communication if any with the instance admins?
For context it may be useful to look at the history of the Fediblock tag in Mastodon, to see what sorts of stuff folks are dealing with historically in terms of both obvious and unremarkable bad actors (e.g., spam) and conflict over acceptability of types of speech and moderation standards.
(Not saying that folks need to embrace similar standards or practices, but it's useful to know what's been going on all this time, especially for folks who are new to the fediverse.)
For example:
- Presence of posts that violate this instance's "no bigotry" rule (Does it matter how prolific this type of content is on the target instance?)
- Instance rules that conflict with this instance's rules directly - if this instance blocks hate speech and the other instance explicitly allows it, for example.
- Admin non-response or unsatisfactory response to reported posts which violate community rules
- Not sure if there's a way in lemmy to track incoming/outgoing reports, but it would be useful for the community to have some idea here. NOT saying to expose the content of all reports, just an idea of volume.
- High volume of bad faith reports from the target instance on users here (e.g., if someone talks about racism here and a hostile instance reports it for "white genocide" or some other bs). This may seem obscure, but it's a real issue on Mastodon.
- Edited to add: Hosting communities whose stated purpose is to share content bigoted content
- Coordinating trolling, harassment, etc.
For reference, local rules:
Be respectful. Everyone should feel welcome here.
No bigotry - including racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, or xenophobia.
No Ads / Spamming.
No pornography.
I think de-federation should be very limited.
It should be used as a tool to fight spam, disassociate with instances allowing the commission of crimes, that propagates abusive content (CSAM, Doxing, Targeted Harassment, SWATing, etc) or other things that cause direct real-world harm.
De-federation should not be used as a political tool to divide social media along partisan lines. If people cannot handle distasteful opinions then they have access to the block button. If users from other instances break the rules here, then they can be banned from here. If you find other communities distasteful, then don't go there.
I have the same views on this topic. Thank you for sharing, and wording it better than I probably could
Well said. I think it’s a slippery slope to start de-federating with instances we find distasteful.
I certainly agree with the statement, but bigotry isn't a partisan issue. I don't think anybody here is calling for defederation over estate taxes or redistricting or infrastructure bills. We're talking about people's right to exist and hate campaigns that are the equivalent of someone posting on behalf of ISIS, to put it charitably. Apologists for people engaged in ideologically motivated violence, literally out there killing people.
My point is that de-federation should be a technical tool to ensure that all of the servers who are on the Fediverse work together to form one large social media network. It is to do things like shut off spam networks and other low-level maintenance. It should not be used as a tool for deciding who gets to speak and who doesn't get to speak. The exception to that would things that are likely to cause direct harm. A person saying 'Let's meet here and shoot up a school' or a person using an instance to dox people, instances that allow CSAM or other illegal content.
I very much disagree with a lot of the views I see on many communities. I disagree with the suggestion that we use federation as anything more than a spam filter or means of disconnecting blatantly illegal things. The difference is that I'm willing to actually discuss the disagreement and attempt to change people's minds.
I don't think it would be right for the server admin to come in and ban you because he didn't like your opinion and you shouldn't think it is right if he came in and banned me for my opinion. No progress can possibly be made if someone simply steps in and puts a wall between the two people that disagree.
I think the role of social media is like the role of the town square. People should be free to come in and say or think whatever they want, no matter how offensive you may find it as long as they're not directly harming someone. You can be wrong all day but you can't punch someone in the face. You can type whatever words that you would like, but you can't use this space to directly harm people.
De-federating another instance does absolutely nothing to their ability to think whatever thoughts you find offensive. It doesn't de-platform them, their instance will continue working just fine without your instance's federation. What you do when you de-federate is you cut off any chance that their mind can be changed and you cut off any opposing viewpoints from being able to try. That builds the worst kinds of echo chambers.
Whatever chances you may assign to being able to change someone's mind via debate, those chances go to 0% when you eliminate the ability to speak to them.
The issue with the ban-happy people is that they equate offensive content to direct harm.
That's literally what they want.
They don't want to change anyone's mind. They want the echochamber.
These are the same users to use the downvote button against people they disagree with.
They're more comfortable living in filter bubble where their ideas are always correct and nobody can even possibly challenge them.
That's fine for a child, but an adult needs to face the world as it actually is both good and bad. It's odd to want to live in a democratic place but don't want to participate in the marketplace of ideas that is vital for making a democracy work.
IMO democracy is merely tyranny of the majority. It's playing out right here in this community, on this instance.
What I really want is a benevolent dictatorship, ala a modern Marcus Aurelius with strong convictions. I hoped The Dude was him, but alas he decided to wash his hands of it and leave it up to community.
Who gets to define "benevolent?"
That's the problem, isn't it.
I think anyone would be happy with a benevolent dictator, as long as they are allowed to define it themselves. That's obviously not practical though. I don't think democracy is ideal, but it seems to be the best system we have.
As much as I very much dislike the current political climate, and even though I'm aware that there is actual violence going on against those that don't deserve it, I must say I disagree with your claim. Not every racist or sexist or homophobe is guilty of violence. We are a tribal species, but not every disagreement has to mean war. Additionally, I don't think defederating communities at the first signs of any of these will achieve what you want.