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

Asklemmy

1454 readers
70 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_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

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 14 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[โ€“] melonplant@latte.isnot.coffee 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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€“] PzkM@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

While I like the idea of granular permissions in principle, I feel like it could cause confusion and frustration for users depending on its implementation. For example, if a user from instance A is unable to reply to a user from instance B, even though both are posting on instance C and are visible to each other. So while granular permissions would be powerful, they could also introduce unwanted scenarios that would be difficult for the average user to understand.

That's why I think it would be good to start with a simpler system. Partial defederation (or limited federation) seems like a compromise which could strike a reasonable balance between controlling content on local instances while minimizing the impact on user experience across instances. That said, if permissions/rights were implemented in a limited or user-friendly way, they could also work.

[โ€“] Pili@lemmy.ml 7 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€“] BobQuasit 4 points 1 year ago

It sounds to me as if the problem is one of technology and manpower; both need to be enhanced. Voting to bell the cat won't help if it's impossible to do!

[โ€“] theory@feddit.uk 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This needs to happen. This is getting ridiculous

[โ€“] 14specks@lemmy.ml 4 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€“] theory@feddit.uk 2 points 1 year ago
[โ€“] Rohbtc@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago

I disagree. I think you should either federate fully or not at all.

Why should we let instances browse and comment in our communites without reciprocity?

[โ€“] Moderator@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago

Imo de-federation literally breaks the WHOLE fucking point of all of this.

[โ€“] pieceofcrazy@feddit.it 3 points 1 year ago

I'm out of the loop, could someone explain what happened?

All I know is that Beehaw defederated (or was defederated by) someone because of trolls?

[โ€“] CeruleanRuin@lemmy.one 2 points 1 year ago

I think this discussion is extra important with the recent and ongoing influx of new users, many of whom don't have a clue what criteria to use when choosing an instance. Plenty of new folk who have no real affiliation with whatever taint their instance might have due to its admin.

[โ€“] albinanigans@kbin.social 0 points 1 year ago

"A Modest Proposal."

Wait, this isn't satire? ;)

load more comments
view more: next โ€บ