Default instance blocks should largely replace defederation

Since what content users might want to see is quite unlikely to match which servers the admins tolerate, choosing instance on the Fediverse can be quite complicated, which is inconvenient and off-putting for new users.

For this reason, and simply that the Fediverse is stronger united, I believe defederation should ideally be reserved for illegal content and extreme cases. If Fediverse platforms would allow instances to simply block the rest for users by default, the user experience would be the same, unless they decide otherwise.

@fediverse #fediverse #defederation

  • Masimatutu@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    But surely they won’t just let in guests for their own sake? They’re still doing it as a service for the guests, even if there are terms.

    And I’d say that people from federated instances aren’t guests, they are more like people that can talk to your guests. Defederation is more like closing the window between the different parties so that they can’t talk to you because they disturb the peace and quiet. Then it seems entirely reasonable that your guests can still listen to them in a way that doesn’t affect the rest of your party.

    • poVoq@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Its a private party, not a service to anyone. The host does it because they enjoy having a party with their friends and other people that know how to behave.

      And no, federated users are no different from local users. What matters is the server location of the community.

      • Masimatutu@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Maybe we’re taking this analogy too far. I just think that the promise of the Fediverse is to be able to be talk to anyone no matter where you choose to be and that we should try to keep this promise. Of course you should be able to keep people out if they disrupt, but it should remain a choice to see their content.

        • poVoq@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          If you host your own instance you are free to invite who ever you choose to your own parties 🤷‍♂️

          • Masimatutu@mander.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            You sure are, but you still have ethics to think about, am I right?

            Edit: It also seems unfair to lock your party in and not letting them interact with people elsewhere.

            • poVoq@slrpnk.net
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              What ethics? Anyone is free to open an account elsewhere.

              And its not about locking anyone in, but why should I as an instance host pay for the drinks of someone that takes them to another party with horrible people that constantly try to crash parties over at my place?

              I don’t mind doing that with nice people’s parties as I want to go over to their parties sometimes as well.

              But if they really want to hang out with these horrible party crashers, they can move over there or make their own party and invite them.

              • Masimatutu@mander.xyz
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                I’d say the Fediverse is a lot more ethical than corporate social media, and that it is the responsibility of everyone who is part of it to help keep it open and help it grow.

                • poVoq@slrpnk.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  I think you need to be more specific in what you mean by that. I don’t think anything in the metaphors that I just wrote is unethical.

                  Corporate social media is unethical because they spy on you and sell your personal data to advertisers. In addition one could argue they are also unethical because they optimize their algorithms to psychologically manipulate you with the goal of stealing your time and attention so that they can show you more advertisements.

                  • Masimatutu@mander.xyz
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    Indeed, so it seems reasonable to help a countermovement grow. Defederation makes it quite a bit more complicated for new users to choose an instance and for anyone to switch instance, and goes a bit against the idea of open social media.

                    And if moderation is not done because it’s a choice to see them and they are barred from posting in one’s communities, the cost of federation is not very high (except, perhaps, i, edge cases like Beehaw where there is a very large defederated userbase with which users would like to interact)