this post was submitted on 15 Jun 2023
4 points (100.0% liked)

Asklemmy

43403 readers
1079 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy πŸ”

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

I apologize if this has been asked before, but I'm wondering if it would be feasible to implement a new approach to defederation that offers the option of choosing between complete or partial defederation from another instance.

Currently, defederation blocks both the locally made posts on the defederated instance and its entire userbase. This can be excessive, and in many cases it may be better to block only the posts made on the other instance while still allowing its users to interact with the instance that defederated β€” user behavior may differ between their home instance and other instances. This partial defederation (or limited federation) would facilitate normal interaction without negatively affecting the content of a feed.

Problematic users could be managed on a case-by-case basis using bans, similar to how it is done for federated instances. Automated tools could simplify this process in the future. Complete defederation would still be necessary in extreme cases where no positive user interactions are expected, such as with instances that promote Nazism.

Instances are being forced to choose between a sledgehammer and nothing at all, and I think a compromise is warranted. I'm curious to read others' thoughts on how to solve this existing challenge.

EDIT: I added a rough sketch that outlines the proposal. On the left side is the system as it works now and on the right side are two possible scenarios for limited federation (1 direction or bidirectional)

top 10 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

deleted by creator

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

Beehaw feels like it's ran by power tripping mods hiding behind toxic positivity and I'm not sad they defederated. I wouldn't denigrate anybody for preferring it but I personally like a little more freedom.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

I am not totally against or in favour of what they are doing and I can't even say what side I tip to. I feel very 50/50.

I think it is in a "meta" way useful for the community, especially those of us (like me) new to the fediverse, to see it. However it goes, we can look and see and form opinions and learn. If it is a mistake, it's a mistake that is inevitable. The capacity is built into the tools and someone was going to use it.

I only wish I knew how or where some sort of.. journalism?... record? was being kept so that things could be understood later by the people not here to see it. So that the same mistakes don't have to happen every 6 months.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

At the very least this move highlighted a big problem with the Fediverse that needs to be ironed out. So I guess that’s good.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

It seems like defederating harms the ones who do it, as it provides incentives for users who want to access both servers to go to a 3rd party. From kbin I can currently see both.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Splitting hairs, but I think rather than implementing a partial defederation, I think it would be better to set user rights for a given federation instance. Some federations you might want to allow view only access, access to a certain "tier" of communities, etc. Make the rights customizable so its as granular as needed by the server.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I'd suggest that beehaw's concerns could be met with a tool that lets you disable posting or voting from off-instance users unless they meet threshold criteria, whether it be account age or post history or manual approval. That would allow you to keep your content interaction controlled without the nuclear option of complete removal.

[–] [email protected] -5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I like that idea. I had to create an account on 3 different instances to be able to interact with the communities I want because of instance blocks, it would be nice not having to juggle them all the time.

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

Yeah people are not going to migrate over if they hear they can't interact with everyone. "Be careful which instance you sign up with because other instances may have blacklisted you, but I can't tell you which home instance to use because it might get overloaded."

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Things will settle. There will be a lot of split communities at first, but in due time it will be more consolidated.

So in more exclusive instances they will have their own communities on a matter if their users need it, but I expect the more general ones to be the go-to for the majority, even if in different instances.