Fediverse

33996 readers

1359 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

Posts must be on topic.
Be respectful of others.
Cite the sources used for graphs and other statistics.
Follow the general Lemmy.world rules.

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

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

Instances in the free fediverses should consider "transitive defederation" from instances that federate with Meta (privacy.thenexus.today)

submitted 1 year ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

135 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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 )

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Right, but what this will end up doing is effectively creating two distinct Fediverses; one with Meta and all the users, and one that will sequester themselves off to an even smaller corner of the internet than before. That's not a healthy outcome. And if all the EEE(E?) rants and ravings people have been posting lately are to be believed, that'll only make these smaller communities even less able to resist Meta's influence.

[+] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

[removed by mod]

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Okay, but that's a disingenuous argument to be making. Yes, AP is designed with the options to block instances, but that's not the core function it's built around. That's a failsafe, not the selling feature that would make communities adopt it. Communities can already exist without federating with other platforms: by running their own, non-AP platform in the first place. The developers of AP didn't say "I want to make a protocol built around blocking connections".

Nobody buys a car for its brakes, but you still need to have them for safety purposes. Defederation is pumping said brakes. It's a necessary feature, but not the main point of the car.

[+] [email protected] -4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

[removed by mod]

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

explain to me why I should care what the designer thinks anyway

Because they're the ones who ultimately control the future of the AP protocol. How it behaves today may not be how it behaves tomorrow. If their intent was to create communities that are isolated islands on the internet, they would've just made a new phpBB. So understanding their design philosophy is going to be important when it comes to running a community on that protocol.