Technology

37738 readers

48 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

TheRtRevKaiser@kbin.social

310

Dispelling the myth of a universal "Lemmy" community, and discussion of what the fediverse really is (self.technology)

submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by Cipher to c/technology

240 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Like many, when the recent defederation went down, I decided to create a couple other logins and see what the wider fediverse has had to say about it.

I've been, honestly, a bit surprised by the response. A huge portion of people seem to be misidentifying communities as belonging to "lemmy" as opposed to the instances that host them. I think a big portion of this seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of what this software is, and how it works.

For example, lemmy.world users are pissed at being de-federated because it excludes them from Beehaw communities. This outrage seems wholly placed in the concept that Beehaw's communities are "owned" by the wider fediverse. This is blatantly not how lemmy works. Each instance hosts a copy of federated instances' content for their users to peruse. The host (Beehaw in this example) remains being the source of truth for these communities. As the source of truth, Beehaw "owns" the affected communities, and it seems people have not realized that.

This also has wider implications for why one might want to de-federate with a wider array of instances. Lets say I have a server in a location that legally prohibits a certain type of pornography. If my users subscribe to other instances/communities that allow that illegal pornography, I (the server admin) may find myself in legal jeopardy because my instance now holds a copy of that content for my users.

Please keep this in mind as you enjoy your time using Lemmy. The decisions that you make affect the wider instance. As you travel the fediverse, please do so with the understanding that your interactions reflect this instance. More than anything, how can we spread this knowledge to a wider audience? How can we make the fediverse and how it works less confusing to people who aren't going to read technical documentation?

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

[–] Cipher 36 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I don't think that assertion is based in reality. A server has to be hosted somewhere, and admins will generally choose to uphold those local regulations for the sake of their instance's own longevity. Federation has never meant that you communicate with literally every other instance. This isn't Tor where nodes pass along communications that don't directly involve themselves.

[–] trachemys@iusearchlinux.fyi 13 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Two separate issues are prompting “defederation”. Blocking users from posting to your local community and blocking remote communities from being mirrored on your server. Those should be handled differently. Beehaw didn’t want trolls posting mean things and blocked every user on a server. Your concern about illegal content would be more a complaint about specific communities that feature that content.

Either way you shouldn’t blame an entire server for a few users or communities you don’t want. Expecting everyone on a instance to be like minded isn’t going to work.

[–] Cipher 16 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The only way to not address things on a per-server basis is for moderation tools to be expanded in scope. Maybe that will be how things work one day, but it is not how things can work right now.

[–] trachemys@iusearchlinux.fyi 4 points 1 year ago

Completely understandable. I am not opposed to moderation or keeping people safe from harassment.

[–] polaroid@kbin.social 7 points 1 year ago

It's a stopgap measure until better moderating tools are developed. I can't blame them for it.

[–] RoboRay@kbin.social 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If that's the only way to stop harassment, yes, you do... anyone on that instance that isn't like-minded with the behavior that instance permits is well-advised to leave it for one better suited to their own beliefs.

[–] trachemys@iusearchlinux.fyi 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Are you then opposed to open registration on instances?

[–] RoboRay@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I'm not opposed to any process on any instance that enforces civil behavior on its registered users. Moderation is mandatory to eliminate defederation as the only way to handle the problem.

If you refuse to moderate your instance, you forfeit any right to complain about your instance getting defederated.

But these things are still too young and primitive for good moderation tools to really exist yet... yet. If your users are getting your instance defederated, maybe that's a problem you should work on.