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

Asklemmy

43853 readers
718 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy ๐Ÿ”

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 โ€” 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 11 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[โ€“] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

deleted by creator

[โ€“] [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.

[โ€“] [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.

[โ€“] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

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.

[โ€“] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

This needs to happen. This is getting ridiculous

[โ€“] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

The site grew something like twenryfold in the span of two days... Honestly I'm impressed at how mild the ridiculousness has been

[โ€“] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I have a feeling that given a couple of years, things will settle out a bit and be more like Mastodon.

Could you imagine if your ISP/Gmail was so particular about what servers you could send email to?

There will always be valid reasons to defederate, although I think the bar for that is going to end up pretty high and well-defined in the future, but it's sort of an organic process to get there.

[โ€“] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

uuuummmmm it does

Cory Doctorow @pluralistic @doctorow
28 Apr 2022
TFW your self-hosted email server of 20+ years stops working because Gmail no longer accepts email from it. #DKIM

https://nitter.kavin.rocks/doctorow/status/1519673852862771200#m

[โ€“] [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.

[โ€“] [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."

[โ€“] [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.