Instances in the free fediverses should consider "transitive defederation" from instances that federate with Meta

cross-posted from: 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 : 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 )

jsh,

Mmm yes, a broken platform dealing in inane absolutes. Take me back to reddit why don’t you?

weeahnn,
@weeahnn@lemmy.world avatar

I swear to god the conversation around Meta joining the fediverse has been one of the most annoying things I’ve had to read about in a while.

capital,

also blocking any instance that federates with an instance hosting harassers and hate groups – provides even stronger protection.

Even safer, unplug your router.

Y’all notice that things always talk about “user safety” and such but never detail just how the NAZIS at Threads will continue to interact with their users when the whole-ass domain is blocked.

This is just another purity test.

kariboka,

Nonsense

DumbAceDragon,
@DumbAceDragon@sh.itjust.works avatar

Splitting the fediverse in half just to get back at Meta is an awful idea.

bigMouthCommie,
@bigMouthCommie@kolektiva.social avatar

it's not about getting back at meta. it's about protecting communities.

Draconic_NEO,

For instances which choose to intentionally mirror or otherwise make available threads content on instances which defederated threats, instances which know about and are deliberately circumventing the fediblock on those other instances it does indeed make sense though. Keep in mind when I talk about it I’m specifically talking about instances who are intentionally trying to circumvent the fediblocks by a coordinated effort, not just that they federate with threads.

Carighan,
@Carighan@lemmy.world avatar

Plus it wouldn’t “get back at” Meta anyways. If their goal is to prevent or defend against some sort of EEE approach (nevermind how little indication their is that that is Meta’s motivation for federating), then splitting the target into two smaller groups is perfect. They can easily do something about the one half, then claim that in addition to them, one of the two big camps of the fediverse already supports their new Meta-led protocol, in turn claiming the other half is silly for refusing to adhere to standards.

As in: Don’t split the standard into two that are then easier to de-standardize if you are interested in standards.

Carighan, (edited )
@Carighan@lemmy.world avatar

I’ll be honest, if this gets adopted I’m out.

Most of these ideas are ridiculous in how they desperately build up windmills to handle a surplus of lances among some fediverse users, but this genuinely applies the very thing you - completely out of nowhere - assume Meta would do to what you’re doing: EEE.

You’re trying to strong-arm users of AP into your modified version usage guidelines for it entirely to suffocate anyone disagreeing.

That’s despicable, even as just an idea.

Corvid,

The good news is that none of the large instances are going for these insane policies. Small instances and solo instances can defederate themselves into irrelevance all they want, just like beehaw did.

spiderman,

exactly, they don’t even have a definitive roadmap yet. most of the instances would block threads anyway if they ever make a decision that could EEE fediverse. blocking instances that federate with threads is kind of a bad move.

sour,
sour avatar

how is strong arm

Carighan,
@Carighan@lemmy.world avatar

Are you here to have a discussion? Or just to harass people?

sour,
sour avatar

how is harassment

GlitterInfection,

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning

sour,
sour avatar

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning

HKayn,
@HKayn@dormi.zone avatar

I can understand defederating from Threads, but transitive defederation is bordering on insanity.

This will do nothing but exert peer pressure onto instances that wish to remain impartial. Transitive defederation will play right into Meta’s hands by fragmenting the Fediverse further.

sour,
sour avatar

is transitive defederation for gab bordering on insanity

Carighan,
@Carighan@lemmy.world avatar

Is making endless false analogies bordering on insanity? You tell me!

sour, (edited )
sour avatar

where got false

Carighan,
@Carighan@lemmy.world avatar

Wat is wordies? Captizalation? Chunktupation-thingies?

sour,
sour avatar

are you here to have discussion or insult people

capital,

Na, that one is probably appropriate.

intensely_human,

“You’re either with us or you’re against us”

— level-headed, fair-acting groups of people throughout history

RIPandTERROR,
@RIPandTERROR@sh.itjust.works avatar

Only a sith deals in absolutes.

____,

While my primary masto is a single user instance, basically anywhere else I exist on the fedi is a subset of infosec dot *.

Those instances are all run by someone who a) is cool with spinning up a whole bunch of instances, b) is willing to risk the costs, and c) is excellent at delineating policy. There’s a “no fucking threads full stop” instance, and a “no threads by default, but user can flip switch” instance, for example.

That’s a method of operation that works from my pov but doesn’t suit everyone’s needs. Personally, I want nothing to do with threads but am more able to express my anti corp tendencies than I was in my twenties, and I’m more willing to accept that “it’s just bandwidth, find the instance that meets your needs.”

My needs involve no threads at all, but I can accomplish that with a very small amount of effort given. My circles.

TORFdot0,

I honestly don’t know what my mastodon instance’s take on blocking threads is but I probably will be blocking them on the account level. Blocking servers transitively because they don’t defederate with meta seems like it is unnecessarily siloing servers into a second “free” fediverse. If a server is moderating their accounts in accordance to the written policy then if they choose to federate with meta, it doesn’t feel like it’s any of my business.

fhqwgads,

We should defederate with any server that has less than 7 degrees of separation with Meta. We can call it the Kevin Bacon rule.

intensely_human,

I just went ahead and defederated with my own brain. This way I never have to worry about Meta sludge ruining my life by existing on my screen.

thenexusofprivacy,

And complement the FediBlock tag with FediBacon! It’s got success written all over it!

iAvicenna,

I mean if it is really transitive then we should defederate with any server that can be connected to Meta with a finite length path

Carighan,
@Carighan@lemmy.world avatar

That includes your own server. 😮

Chozo, (edited )
Chozo avatar

I'm not so sure that this sort of divisive policy is healthy for the Fediverse. ActivityPub is meant to connect communities, not split them apart. I feel like this is just going to cause even more fragmentation at a time when ActivityPub can really be showing off its capabilities.

I imagine this would dissuade further adoption by other communities.

TacoButtPlug,
@TacoButtPlug@sh.itjust.works avatar

I feel like this was part of the Meta plan from the start. They know what they’re doing.

intensely_human,

It was part of Meta’s plan for us to behave badly?

FaceDeer,
FaceDeer avatar

<shoots myself in the foot> Look what Meta made me do!

Chozo,
Chozo avatar

I could see it as being part of Meta's plan to make the Fediverse fracture itself to make it easier to manipulate.

intensely_human,

Definitely. My point is that it’s our own behavior that’s the link the chain, meaning we have an opportunity to not do it.

Deceptichum,
Deceptichum avatar

If its capability is connecting with corporations, I think its best for the long term health to not show that.

Excrubulent,
@Excrubulent@slrpnk.net avatar

Activitypub is deliberately designed to allow disconnection as and when needed. Splitting apart is entirely the point of having defederation.

I do not understand this idea that the fediverse was always meant to be some kumbayah peace & love positive vibes only space and that utilising defederation is going to wound its delicate soul.

No. Federation is a system with teeth; if we defang it for the sake of being nice to everyone then it won’t be able to achieve its promise of freedom from corporate overlords. Independence and self determination is the point, not being chill and cool and like, totally copacetic with all mankind, man.

Chozo,
Chozo avatar

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.

Excrubulent, (edited )
@Excrubulent@slrpnk.net avatar

You said:

ActivityPub is meant to connect communities, not split them apart.

This is just blatantly wrong. I was addressing this and only this.

I don’t know if I agree with transitive defederation, I did not take a position on it, and I don’t know why you’re trying to argue it with me except that you know this kumbayah crap isn’t a position you can argue.

I just know BS when I smell it, and I’m sick of smelling this particular kind.

Chozo,
Chozo avatar

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.

Excrubulent,
@Excrubulent@slrpnk.net avatar

A car without brakes is a death trap. You use brakes exactly in proportion to how much you use the accelerator. Your analogy is garbage. It’s like saying “you have a house for the space inside, not for the roof overhead”. It’s nonsensical.

Federation and defederation are two sides of the same coin. The one is the shadow of the other. Interpersonal boundaries are necessary for healthy relationships IRL, and they mainly come into play when telling people no, not when telling them yes. AP was absolutely designed with disconnection in mind. We know that because it’s a core function. If you want to tell me otherwise then you need to give me a quote, and then explain to me why I should care what the designer thinks anyway.

Pretending federation is about connection and not disconnection is disingenuous. It’s meaningless fluff that as far as I can tell is perfectly suited to convincing people to let their guard down, and may well have been designed for that purpose.

Chozo,
Chozo avatar

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.

Excrubulent,
@Excrubulent@slrpnk.net avatar

What matters is what can be done with the protocol. Defederation is baked in at this point, and if it goes off the rails we can just fork it.

And I can see you don’t have anything to back up your claim that federation is somehow an unimportant side feature of federation.

orgrinrt,

Man, you had a good point initially, but now you’re just really stubbornly defending a position you must realize is a really thin one. You’re arguing that they implied defederation isn’t important, but that’s a straw man you yourself constructed, not what they said at all.

I think you might have lost sight of what’s rational for pride or something.

Excrubulent,
@Excrubulent@slrpnk.net avatar

you’re just really stubbornly defending a position you must realize is a really thin one. […] that’s a straw man you yourself constructed […] I think you might have lost sight of what’s rational for pride or something.

All of this is pure projection. You don’t need to invent an elaborate fantasy about what a bad thinky person I am in order to make a point, if you have one.

You’re arguing that they implied defederation isn’t important, but that’s a straw man you yourself constructed, not what they said at all.

And this fucking bullshit is just gaslighting. The thread is still here, at least for now. I can read it.

haui_lemmy,

I have no idea why people are downvoting you but I agree fully.

A lot of folks here dont have much experience with social situations and life in general and it shows.

Studies show that big corporations behave like psychoaths. Lack of remorse, lack of empathy, hostile demeanor and impulsiveness.

Would you invite someone like this to your home and expect everything to be all right afterwards?

In the case of meta its also a psychopath with enough money and lawyers that they could murder you in cold blood and wouldn’t even go to jail so to speak.

Why would we federate with them just to defederate when (not if) they start pushing their agenda through? Ads, one way federation etc.

orgrinrt, (edited )

Well, I might have an idea why it’s downvoted so.

While I agree with the sentiment, and as such, upvoted to boost the message, it’s still very combative and needlessly passive-aggressive with its kumbayah and the stereotypical hippie talk, “man”, which really just annoyed and cringed myself too.

But to each their own. I still like to boost if the sentiment is valuable as a pov at least, here I happen to also agree. But the passive-aggressive tone is really uncalled for.

Edit: I read further ahead, and this person in question continues their combative and provocative tone. I’m tempted to recall my upvote just because of this, but it’s a good perspective to consider, so I’ll stick with boosting this specific comment with an upvote (though not the later ones that ramp up the toxicity). But I really do not like the tone… I can very clearly now see why many would downvote.

haui_lemmy,

I agree that combative tone does not make sense in conveying a message and more hinders than anything. But I have done so myself and probably will fall into the same trap here and there. I would argue that it is a good thing to tell someone “I agree in principle but I think you should reconsider your words to strip them of divisive content” or the like.

Psychology tells us that most people mean good, sometimes making the worst mistakes that produce terrible outcomes.

Alas, thank you for elaborating. :)

Zak,
@Zak@lemmy.world avatar

I understand the argument for servers blocking Threads/Meta. It doesn’t strike me as the right choice for every server, but it’s clearly a good choice for some servers. Threads doesn’t moderate the way many fediverse servers would like their peers to, and Meta is generally an ill-behaved company. Blocking it is appropriate for servers emphasizing protection for vulnerable users, and inappropriate for servers trying to be big and open. The fediverse is great because people can choose what’s right for them.

I do not, however understand the argument for blocking servers that do not block Threads and I think the article could be improved with a more thorough explanation. Maybe there’s something I’m missing about the mechanics at work here, but isn’t one’s own server blocking Threads enough to keep Threads users from being able to interact?

thenexusofprivacy,

It’s good feedback, thanks – I thought I had enough of explanation in the article but maybe I should put in more. Blocking Threads keeps Threads userws from being able to directly interact with you, but it doesn’t prevent indirect interactions: people on servers following quoting or replying to Threads posts, causing toxicity on your feeds (often called “second-hand smoke”); hate groups on Threads encouragiingtheir followers in the fediverse to harass people; and for people who have stalkers or are being targeted by hate groups Threads, replies to your posts by people who have followers on Threads going there and revealing information.

Zak,
@Zak@lemmy.world avatar

Thanks for the explanation. Those do sound like significant issues for people at high risk for targeted harassment which wouldn’t be obvious to those of us fortunate enough not to have had that experience.

Carighan,
@Carighan@lemmy.world avatar

What about non-meta toxicity? Does the same argument apply for all sources of toxicity? And to what degree does transitivity apply?

capital,

and revealing information

It’s already available publicly without having to log in.

amju_wolf,
@amju_wolf@pawb.social avatar

Why not judge these instances on their own merit though? If what you say becomes true and is so problematic and rampant that it needs addressing, you can block that instance. But doing so preemptively seems petty and counterproductive at best.

What if there is an instance that selectively reposts from Threads only decent, thoughtful discussions?

Oh and as a side note; if you’re worried about stuff getting more mainstream, toxic and polarized that’s kinda inevitable if you want more people using the fediverse, that’s just how it is when lots of differently thinking people are in one place.

otter,

We really need better visualization tools for who is federated with what. Meta is just one large / recognizable company to pop into the fediverse. Others will move in over time, and if instances choose to do something like this (defed from any instance that didn’t also defed), then it’s going to be a complete mess trying to figure out who is federated with what. Those smaller defederated instances will need to be extra clear about who they are federated with and why, otherwise people will avoid them.

I personally think this is a bad choice to make, but instances are free to do as they please.

PlasterAnalyst,

I envision brands creating their own instances that federate with Meta. Then you can get an exclusive Gucci account for some absurd amount of money and use it to flex on the plebs.

loobkoob,
loobkoob avatar

It'll potentially just end up like emails (which are also federated, after all), where Gucci employees get an @gucci.com email address and an @gucci.com ActivityPub handle.

otter,

It might also help with the whole verification mess.

officialgucci@example.com looks fake

main@gucci.com is clearly legitimate, as is anything else a company might want to do (ex. ronald@mcdonalds.com)

scrubbles,
@scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech avatar

Yeah, strong arming instances to do something or another based on a personal preference I thought was meta’s job, not the fediverses.

The entire point is that each instance should decide for themselves. If they want to defederate with me because I haven’t made up my mind yet, then so long I guess, to me that says more about them then it does Meta.

thenexusofprivacy,

Indeed, the entire point is that instances should decide for themselves – I say it multiple times in the article and I say it in the excerpt. If they think that you federating with Meta puts them at risk, then they should defederate. And yes, it says more about the instances making the decisions than it does about Meta – Meta’s hosting hate groups and white supremacists whether or not people defederate or transitively defederate.

fishos,
@fishos@lemmy.world avatar

Aren’t you from that instance that threw a tantrum recently and threatened to defed the programming instance because of a personal beef between the admins that was quickly resolved and only resulted in creating a bunch of needless drama?

The above OP is right, it really says more about the servers advocating these things than Meta. Stop wallowing in the mud and just be better than them. Lead by example, not whatever this petty squabble is.

scrubbles,
@scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech avatar

Thanks for getting what I was saying.

I’m giving meta a 3 strike rule for my instance. Yes, I will probably eventually defederate with them - but I’m not going to immediately do it now. Yes, they’re a horrible company, horrible ethics, and I hate them. However, I’m not going to be one who just blocks them prematurely, they can prove themselves why they’re terrible to me. I’ll probably get overwhelmed with moderating and just cut it then.

fishos,
@fishos@lemmy.world avatar

Thank you for fighting the good fight. That’s the proper way to do it.

sour,
sour avatar

anyone can be better than company that experimented on teenagers

sour, (edited )
sour avatar

because refusing to talk to instance is strong arming

balancedchaos,

As long as Meta can’t infect the rest of the fediverse, or track or monetize it…fine. I just never, ever want Meta shit on my timeline.

Chozo,
Chozo avatar

What sort of "Meta shit" would you possibly expect to appear on your timeline?

balancedchaos,

Sort by “all,” and the popular instances show up.

I wouldn’t like to see FB and Threads dominate that with the bleating of the sheep they’ve cultivated.

Chozo,
Chozo avatar

Okay, but what sort of material would you expect to actually see on your timeline in this scenario?

intensely_human,

They can’t answer this. All they do is downvote you. It means you found the end of their philosophy.

For some people, their philosophy ends where a question about specifics begins.

balancedchaos,

Wow. Really reaching there, huh?

What Meta shit wouldn’t I like to see? A general watering down of the comment quality. Trolling. Nonsense. What has happened to every somewhat technical technology the second the normies cry “gatekeeping” and force their way in with a dumb fucking look on their face and without an original idea in their heads.

That Meta shit is what I’d like to avoid. Just because one doesn’t have opportunity to respond doesn’t mean there isn’t a response.

sour, (edited )
sour avatar

””””influencers””””

Chozo,
Chozo avatar

Pretty sure they're on TikTok, and not Threads.

sour,
sour avatar

._.

intensely_human,

How would Meta “infect” anything? Do you really think Meta is producing self-replicating things that jump from person to person?

helenslunch,

or track or monetize it

Meta doesn’t need federation to track or monetize anything.

I just never, ever want Meta shit on my timeline.

You can personally block them. You don’t have to tell your admin to defederate the entire instance or defederate from other instances who choose not to.

sour,
sour avatar

you can personally block truth.social

kariboka,

What is it? Doesn’t load.

FaceDeer,
FaceDeer avatar

So don't subscribe to Meta-hosted communities?

Lots of Fediverse instances let you block whole instances, too, so you could personally block them. Problem solved.

thecrotch,

I’ve learned that there’s a huge number of people on lemmy who prefer government regulation to self control. I had an argument with a guy the other day who wants $12 lattes banned instead of simply not buying them. Apparently making something available is the same as putting a gun to your head and forcing you to buy it.

sour,
sour avatar

does self control prevent triangle shirtwaist fire

thecrotch,

No, that is an example of an appropriate problem to solve with regulation. “If something I exists I must buy it and that is the vendor’s fault” is not.

sour,
sour avatar

if regular latte is 12 dollars is economy problem

thecrotch,

McDonald’s has a latte for $1 and Dunkin donuts has one for $2.65. It’s not an economy problem. It’s probably a pretty good latte. I dunno, never tried it, $12 is too much for sugar coffee.

sour, (edited )
sour avatar

is problem when mcdonalds latte costs 12 dollars

thecrotch,

That would be some pretty intense inflation yeah

webghost0101,

Meta disgusts me but i cant lie and say the opportunity that my family may without me pushing much may join the fediverse on threads sounds much nicer then the status quo.

I am all for protecting the fediverse from metas ideas so i do support defediration.

With this transistive tool what happens if i am on my own instance, defederated from meta but i dont the transition and federate with a community that is federated with meta.

Could i see threads from my instance trough the federated one?

Is my own instance safe from meta?

Will transistive defederation mean others will automatically defederate with my instance because i federate with an instance that is federated with threads?

intensely_human,

Man just gotta respond to one thing here. I’m not for protecting anyone from any ideas. Better to have an immune system than a sterile environment that requires isolation to maintain.

webghost0101,

With “ideas” i am actually referencing any less then respect plans collecting data and monopolizing the fediverse meta may have.

I wouldn’t be supposed if meta wasn’t paying some in house developers to help work on the open source federation improvements only to in same breath ease in compatibility with their own systems.

If we’re not careful we might get properly invaded, meta will set the rules for the fediverse to follow. Independent communities that cant follow the same new protocols gets pushed out and will go extinct.

At least thats what i understood is the reason threads gets defederated, better to break up now that its small then to get consumed as it grows.

But i still hoped there could Be some safe doors and gateways in the middle.

sour,
sour avatar

does ideas include fascism

Carighan,
@Carighan@lemmy.world avatar

Yes, there’s fascist ideas somewhere on Lemmy. And on Mastodon. Ideas can be fascist. Unless you want to get into a very complex philosophical debate I think that’s pretty established.

sour,
sour avatar

are you for protecting people from fascism

intensely_human,

Not from the idea of it, no.

sour,
sour avatar

._.

Womble,

You do realise protecting people from the idea of fascism means people not knowing about the holocaust or how Mussolini gained power right?

sour, (edited )
sour avatar

history and fascism sold as good idea is different thing

Womble, (edited )

Thats shifting the goalposts, I don’t see anyone advocating for fascism here, just for saying people shouldnt be shielded from the idea of it

sour, (edited )
sour avatar

that fascism exists isnt idea to protect people from

that fascism is good is

capital,

Lack of isolation online played a big part in my deconverting from Christianity.

These goobers on Mastodon content warning a fucking dog looking at you or, heaven forbid, a plate of food, cracks me up.

How do they function day to day? Grow up.

sour,
sour avatar

strawman ._.

capital,

Where’s the strawman? Those are specific examples I’ve seen.

sour,
sour avatar

where

capital,

I’ll invite you to reread my original comment to answer your question.

sour,
sour avatar

make claim provide evidence

capital, (edited )

Jesus you’re annoying.

Here is a single example from 10 seconds of scrolling.

Now, what are you going to do with that information? What was the point?

Edit: hahaha just search Mastodon for “eye contact”. There’s more than I originally thought.

sour,
sour avatar

content warning isnt isolation

capital,

Ah, so now that I’ve shown I wasn’t full of shit, you need to change tack.

This is something you could have responded with to my original comment.

And it is a form of isolation. Its isolation the poor sensitive souls on Mastodon subject themselves to willingly.

I’m vegan and I’ve run into vegans on mastodon who bitch and moan about CW on posts with animal products and that’s just as ridiculous.

Again, grow the fuck up.

sour,
sour avatar

content warning doesnt remove post from feed

if am supposed to personally block threads you can block people you think are ridiculous

do you have better thing to get mad about

capital,

I’ve already fixed CW on my end by using the setting to show everything by default. They don’t personally bother me.

Those that expect me to CW benign things bother me.

My comment was and continues to be about people who isolate themselves because people post scary pictures of eye contact and plates of food.

sour, (edited )
sour avatar

why is block apply to threads but not people that bother you

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • fediverse@lemmy.world
  • kavyap
  • thenastyranch
  • GTA5RPClips
  • tester
  • InstantRegret
  • DreamBathrooms
  • ngwrru68w68
  • magazineikmin
  • everett
  • Youngstown
  • mdbf
  • slotface
  • rosin
  • cisconetworking
  • megavids
  • khanakhh
  • normalnudes
  • osvaldo12
  • cubers
  • tacticalgear
  • Durango
  • ethstaker
  • modclub
  • anitta
  • provamag3
  • Leos
  • JUstTest
  • lostlight
  • All magazines
    •