1y ago

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

privacy.thenexus.today /consider-transitively-defederatiion/

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 )

The Nexus of Privacy @lemmy.blahaj.zone

1y ago

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

privacy.thenexus.today /consider-transitively-defederatiion/

142 comments

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
  
  Na, that one is probably appropriate.
  
  Is making endless false analogies bordering on insanity? You tell me!

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.
  
  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?
  
  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.
- because refusing to talk to instance is strong arming
- 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.

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.
  
  What about non-meta toxicity? Does the same argument apply for all sources of toxicity? And to what degree does transitivity apply?
  
  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.
  
  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.
  
  and revealing information
  It’s already available publicly without having to log in.

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?

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.
- it's not about getting back at meta. it's about protecting communities.
  
  If I run an instance that blocks threads, how do my users have interaction with threads users?

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.
  
  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.
- If its capability is connecting with corporations, I think its best for the long term health to not show that.
- I feel like this was part of the Meta plan from the start. They know what they're doing.
  
  It was part of Meta’s plan for us to behave badly?

no thanks. no need to technology a kneejerk reaction to nonexistent problem.
- 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.
  
  With ActivityPub, Meta is playing on our turf. They don't have home field advantage here. ActivityPub isn't a protocol that they control.
  
  Sure, something “hasn’t happened (yet)”.
  Pretty much the definition of a 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.

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.

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 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.
- 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. 😮
- And complement the FediBlock tag with FediBacon! It's got success written all over it!

Eh, nah, not as a preemptive thing. If threads users become a problem, then transitive defed is a good option. Otherwise it just makes the whole thing more annoying than it's worth.

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.

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?
- 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.
  
  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.
  
  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.
  
  does ideas include fascism

Nonsense

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.
- 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.
  
  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.

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.

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.

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

142 comments