Default instance blocks should largely replace defederation

Since what content users might want to see is quite unlikely to match which servers the admins tolerate, choosing instance on the Fediverse can be quite complicated, which is inconvenient and off-putting for new users.

For this reason, and simply that the Fediverse is stronger united, I believe defederation should ideally be reserved for illegal content and extreme cases. If Fediverse platforms would allow instances to simply block the rest for users by default, the user experience would be the same, unless they decide otherwise.

@fediverse #fediverse #defederation

  • KISSmyOS@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    56
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    7 months ago

    Federation copies content from other instances onto an instance admin’s server.
    So the instance admin, who is responsible for all content on their server, gets to decide if they want that or not.

    • Masimatutu@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      Although I don’t think Beehaw blocks sh.itjust.works because it has content that they are uncomfortable hosting. The main reason is (as usual) the comfort of their users, but to help the Fediverse as a whole, instance blocking might be a more constructive approach.

    • masimatutu@nerdica.netOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      7 months ago

      Me too. I’m simply trying to spark ideas for devs to give admins more options for how they can run their instances (and also trying to convince admins about what’s best for the Fediverse).

  • masimatutu@nerdica.netOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 months ago

    Clarification, because people keep misunderstanding my point: What I’m advocating for is replacing most defederation with some sort of “soft defederation” in which instance admins can select domains which are blocked by default for the users, but which they can unblock afterwards if they want to.

    • poVoq@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      That wouldn’t work. I find it strange that some users keep thinking moderation or defederation is somehow about them or to keep them from accessing things. Talk about self-centered to an extreme degree 😅

      Defederation is primarily used to keep bad stuff away from an instance and its (volunteer) moderators. Either because it is illegal or because it causes loads of moderation workload in the communities hosted by an instance. Neither of which would your proposal of soft-defederation solve even a single bit.

      • masimatutu@nerdica.netOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        Well I said that illegal content should still be defederated. And I don’t think soft defederated content has to be moderated, since it’s only a number of users who choose to see it.

        • poVoq@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          7 months ago

          Just because few people can see it in the home instance doesn’t mean it isn’t there. And when a community is viewed from remote instances that have a different soft-defederation list all the bad stuff will be publicly visible (and indexed via search engines).

          So for example a feminist community would be full of incel posts that are publicly visible almost everywhere.

          • masimatutu@nerdica.netOP
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            7 months ago

            Okay, that’s entirely fair. I was mostly thinking about the microblogging side of the Fediverse and didn’t quite consider the complexity that it would add to community moderation. I guess better moderation mechanisms could probably account for that, but Lemmy is as of now far away from that.

            Edit: One might also solve that by not allowing soft defederated users to post in local communities.

      • Masimatutu@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        Also, how is moderation not about the user? It’s the user who uses the platform; if they wouldn’t care about them they wouldn’t moderate at all, or run an instance in the first place for that matter.

        • poVoq@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          You got that completely backwards.

          You as a user are a guest of something akin to a private house party and are expected to behave as such. In turn the instance tries to be a welcoming party host by providing an enjoyable place for you to talk with other guests.

          Moderation in that case is about removing guest that don’t know how to behave and choose to shit on the carpet. Defederation is about turning away known to be bad guests at the entrance so that the volunteers inside don’t have to clean shit off the carpets all the time.

          • Masimatutu@mander.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            7 months ago

            But surely they won’t just let in guests for their own sake? They’re still doing it as a service for the guests, even if there are terms.

            And I’d say that people from federated instances aren’t guests, they are more like people that can talk to your guests. Defederation is more like closing the window between the different parties so that they can’t talk to you because they disturb the peace and quiet. Then it seems entirely reasonable that your guests can still listen to them in a way that doesn’t affect the rest of your party.

            • poVoq@slrpnk.net
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              7
              ·
              edit-2
              7 months ago

              Its a private party, not a service to anyone. The host does it because they enjoy having a party with their friends and other people that know how to behave.

              And no, federated users are no different from local users. What matters is the server location of the community.

              • Masimatutu@mander.xyz
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                7 months ago

                Maybe we’re taking this analogy too far. I just think that the promise of the Fediverse is to be able to be talk to anyone no matter where you choose to be and that we should try to keep this promise. Of course you should be able to keep people out if they disrupt, but it should remain a choice to see their content.

                • poVoq@slrpnk.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  ·
                  7 months ago

                  If you host your own instance you are free to invite who ever you choose to your own parties 🤷‍♂️

  • Ada@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    7 months ago

    Ask people who face open abuse because of their identity how they feel, and you’ll see that not everyone wants what you want.

    If there are people who want me dead, then a response of “tough, you and every other queer person has to block them all yourselves, one by one” isn’t the all in one solution you think it is.

    • masimatutu@nerdica.netOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      7 months ago

      I hear you, and that’s why I’m suggesting the implementation of default instance blocks before more open federation.

      • Ada@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        7 months ago

        Who builds those default lists? Because most social media platforms are tolerant of transphobia for example, as long as it’s “civil”.

        • masimatutu@nerdica.netOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          7 months ago

          No, I mean that admins select instances that are blocked by default for users. Kinda like a soft defederation.

          • Ada@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            7 months ago

            Ok, I can see that. Hard and soft options. The admin can choose whether it can be over ridden by users or not.

  • h3ndrik@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    Yes. That needs to be implemented. It’s a bit annoying that Lemmy is still missing that much moderation and usability features.

  • dylanTheDeveloper@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    It already is, you just have to convince the server owner whats ‘extreme’ or not. Some servers hate liberals, others hate the right, some are followers of the windmill party and others would get you on a watchlist.

    And the more mundane stuff like having porn and gore posts not tagged as NSFW will get your instance defederated.

    What we actually need is better mod tools

    • AwkwardLookMonkeyPuppet@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      I would love to see more middle of the road, non-extremist content. It seems that every instance is all the way left, falling off the chart, and then like 3 instances are falling off the other side of the chart, and defederated everywhere.

  • იႦაႵმყიიႶ@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    (Edit!: can’t you just block users who you don’t like what they have to say no matter how mild?)

    I don’t see why a couple of peeps other users get offended by because they have a different opinion but aren’t bein outright harming/threatening/other Xtreme actions, should lead to those peeps’ instances being blocked and or defederated. looks so pathetically bad when that happens and can also turn off new users

    • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      7 months ago

      If you don’t like who an instance federated with, find a new instance that aligns with what you want.

      Or if there aren’t any, host your own.

      However the majority of users don’t want that hateful shit in their feed, or comments from the people who join those instances

      Stop trying to force people to see that shit if they don’t want to.

      • Masimatutu@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        7 months ago

        If you don’t like who an instance federated with, find a new instance that aligns with what you want.

        Which is inconvenient and off-putting for new users.

        Stop trying to force people to see that shit if they don’t want to.

        Default blocks would solve this, while making the decision the user’s.

        • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          7 months ago

          You keep saying “block” so I’m going to try blocking a couple accounts I never want to hear from again

          • იႦაႵმყიიႶ@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            7 months ago

            Yeah that seems like it would solve your problems no /s Alotta instances are lenient on their users speech and only ask “no (actual) hate speech etc discrimination” and friendo, a different opinion isn’t either of those things and don’t fall under the rules to get in trouble by