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 )
Splitting the fediverse in half just to get back at Meta is an awful idea.
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.
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.
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.
“You’re either with us or you’re against us”
— level-headed, fair-acting groups of people throughout history
Only a sith deals in absolutes.
is transitive defederation for gab bordering on insanity
Is making endless false analogies bordering on insanity? You tell me!
where got false
Wat is wordies? Captizalation? Chunktupation-thingies?
are you here to have discussion or insult people
We should defederate with any server that has less than 7 degrees of separation with Meta. We can call it the Kevin Bacon rule.
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
That includes your own server. 😮
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.
And complement the FediBlock tag with FediBacon! It’s got success written all over it!
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?
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.
and revealing information
It’s already available publicly without having to log in.
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.
What about non-meta toxicity? Does the same argument apply for all sources of toxicity? And to what degree does transitivity apply?
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.
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.
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.
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.
how is strong arm
Are you here to have a discussion? Or just to harass people?
how is harassment
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.
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.
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.
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.
I feel like this was part of the Meta plan from the start. They know what they’re doing.
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.
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.
deleted by creator
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.
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.
does self control prevent triangle shirtwaist fire
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.
How would Meta “infect” anything? Do you really think Meta is producing self-replicating things that jump from person to person?
What sort of “Meta shit” would you possibly expect to appear on your timeline?
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.
Okay, but what sort of material would you expect to actually see on your timeline in this scenario?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Thank you for fighting the good fight. That’s the proper way to do it.
because refusing to talk to instance is strong arming
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.
no thanks. no need to technology a kneejerk reaction to nonexistent problem.
I mean, this would mean that the most rabidly anti-federation instances would wall themselves off from instances that are okay with giving Meta a chance, so it would reduce the drama somewhat. I wouldn’t mind no longer seeing all the endless doomsaying.
That’s a good point, it would get a lot of very rabid users out of a fair few instances.
because not cooperating with genocide enabler is rabid
I don’t know. Calling Meta a nonexistent problem sounds naive to me. Sure, something “hasn’t happened (yet)”. Except, it’s Meta … plenty has happened already. How many times are we going to allow selves to be fooled?
im not going to get into this, again, as im sick of asking the same thing and no one ever having a valid response so ill just state it.
theres no technical reason to think meta can overtake the ap protocol and substantially alter it in any appreciable way. that they have a federating server in threads is not some crazy threat unless your own shit becomes dependent on that federation. if it does, its on the instance owner not threads.
as it is, there is zero reason to not federate with threads other than substantial resource use (flooding) and righteous indignation.
i run a public instance, and as soon as threads interferes with it, i will nip that shit in the bud. until then, i plan on providing an offramp for those trapped in metas walled garden.
I don’t federate with any instance that openly houses hate groups. Threads houses hate groups.
There’s a reason for you.
It may not be enough of a reason for you, but that’s a whole different thing to there being “zero reason not to federate”
you got the righteous indignation part down pat.
its work to block instances. im not going to operate like that. im treating AP like email. i dont block facebooks SMTP, i dont block Nestle email… im not going to block their AP.
i am providing assistance to humans wanting to leave the walled garden. you are not capable of that, apparently.
but you do you. thats what its all about.
edit: btw none of this is technical in nature. its just political. i stand by the fact there is no technical reason to not federate.
With ActivityPub, Meta is playing on our turf. They don’t have home field advantage here. ActivityPub isn’t a protocol that they control.
I mean, for now.
Mastodon, through its dominance is already shaping what the protocol is and isn’t. For instance, the Server to Client API that mastodon runs is of its own making and design and just about every microblogging app relies on it such that any other platform tries to mimic it. It’s become a de facto standard. Should mastodon change their API, many other platforms will feel compelled to follow suit. There are now voices calling for it to be standardised. BUT … talk to people working on the actual protocol and they’ll say they hate this because the protocol already has a standard for this and it should be used instead … and app developers will basically say “well, everyone is using the mastodon API already … why would I use this thing no one knows about”.
Threads/Meta can do exactly the same thing over time. And once they have control over how some parts of the fediverse operate, which they will have by having “the standard” and the dominance of users to force people to comply … then they can influence what is and isn’t in the standard to suit their purposes (think surveillance and ads) and even add things that only work on Threads, which of course will presumably attract more users (as Threads is already huge).
More abstractly … “our turf” here isn’t the protocol. The protocol is over-emphasised as some magic element that makes everything here work. It’s just a tool. The stuff that actually makes the fediverse work are all of the software platforms, such as Lemmy and Mastodon, that provide the actual social media we use. And they just use the protocol. It’s the quality and design choices of these platforms that are “our turf”, and these depend very much on the developers and the users and their motivations/desires. Threads is big enough that it can distort the network of motivations. An example … There’s a mastodon mobile app (Mammoth) that is the only one to implement a recommendation/algorithmic feed. One of their key motivations (they’ve stated so publicly) is to be ready for when Threads joins the fediverse so that their app can attract Threads users. They also run their own mastodon instance, which I can only presume they’d be happy to modify with their own features.
Another way they can exert influence is through altering the way moderation affects the fediverse. Moderating what comes through from Threads is likely to be onerous. It alone will be a reason for some instances defederating. But some instances will want to stay connected to the large userbase of Threads, and will tolerate some of the garbage coming through. The net effect will be to splinter the fediverse between those that can’t and those that can tolerate a lower average quality of user/content. Such a hard splintering wouldn’t occur if all of those users were spread out amongst more instances instead of coming from a single source/instance whose size alone attracts disproportionate interest and gravity (to the point that this discussion happens again and again).
So importantly, what’s the reason they would do any of this? Curb competition? Don’t make me laugh. User-wise the entire fediverse is so tiny compared to meta none of their metrics would even be able to show us due to rounding.
Is it really so difficult to assert that their only valid motivation could be to preempt EU legislation by talking about how they’re embracing open tech? And how completely blocking them would actually play into their narrative by allowing them to argue how useless trying to force big tech to be open is, clearly no one wants that’s they tried?
It’s a symbolic piece for them. If we can use that to lure users away from Meta all the better, but even there be real, the total amount lured might be relevant for AP but unnoticeable to Meta.
Sure, something “hasn’t happened (yet)”.
Pretty much the definition of a nonexistent problem.
Sorry. But that’s just shallow word games, not to mention cherry picking my words.
The thing that has “happened” is that a mega corp with a track record has stated and acted on intentions to directly interact with the fediverse.
Calling that a nonexistent problem is like saying the sun doesn’t exist at night time.
It’s word games being used to point to something real. A longer way of saying “let’s not solve a non-existent problem” is “There is uncertainty in our understanding and predictions, so we should not treat predicted future problems the same as current observed problems”.
Using the phrase “non-existent problem” just points to this wisdom by reminding the person that the future is not a real thing but rather a mental image, ie it doesn’t exist yet, and may never exist the way we predict it.
It’s similar to “cross that bridge when we come to it” referring to not focusing efforts on future problems when there are plenty of present problems to solve.
Nothing about the nature of Meta and their track record is imagined. Risk management is the concept you’re missing here, where a bit more of that earlier in the story of how big tech monopolised the internet and our lives on it would have gone a long way. Now where trying to pick up the pieces and a whole generation doesn’t even understand the problem.
The current substack situation is similar where a bunch of people got tricked into getting trapped in a monopolised platform by being convinced they could leave anytime all while the value of network effects was being used to build walls around them without anyone remembering that platform lock in is almost always bad. Plenty of people could have done something about it just to keep substack honest. But here we are again.
