What defederating would mean:

  • We won’t see beehaw.org posts/comments on other instances.

Pros:

  • There is less confusion, you can’t respond to a beehaw.org user, thinking they will be able to see your response when in reality they cannot.

Cons:

  • We won’t be able to see any beehaw.org comments/posts on other instances, so we will miss out on some comment threads and posts. It could be good to be able to see them and interact with the other users there even though beehaw.org users won’t see any of our content.

Summary

Overall, I think it is better not to defederate, but simply unsubscribe from all of their communities (and as we no longer get posts from their instance, with time these will cease to appear on our ‘front page’).

beehaw.org users already can’t see our posts/comments anywhere so it’s not like defederating would change their experience in any way, so it wouldn’t really be retaliation and would just limit the content available to lemmy.world users.

What do you think?

  • root@u.fail
    131·
    1 year ago

    This whole defederation situation seems like putting the power in the hands of the wrong people.

    Users should choose what they want to see/interact with. Maybe subs/mods. Not entire servers imho.

    If certain subs on beehaw want to restrict access, fine because users choose to participate. If users want to restrict themselves or control their own experience, fine because it only impacts them. But when it’s done at a server level you have given too much power to people that aren’t part of your community.

    Or maybe I’m wrong… I’m new

    • jcg@halubilo.social
      4·
      1 year ago

      Yeah, Beehaw administrators said in their post that this was not really on moral or ethical grounds but just about it being really hard to moderate an influx of users from another instance. They have their registration behind an application for a reason, after all. Having a giant instance with open registration have free reign on their community kind of defeats that purpose. They also said the defederation isn’t meant to be permanent, but rather it’s a stop gap solution until there’s better moderation tools.

    • Gatsby@lemm.ee
      3·
      1 year ago

      To simplify it as much as i can, defederation should be read only. Not if(in our group/(then)they have access

      The instance itself shoud be able to say it does not want content created from a subset of the internet. (Personally Its not my first choice as a freedom of speech advocate. But for them to delcare who is welcome to talk in their house is a decent compromise.)

      To benefit the federation as a whole, the information and conversations taken place there should be available to the whole of the hive.

      The mods could have their pie not needing more hands to manage the influx, the fediverse would have their pie with more content as a whole. ie more information available to more people at a loss of fewer availible accounts with acces to comment within restricted instances.

      Defederation to me == we cant moderate the collective to our standards.

      We cant moderate the collective to our standards =/= IF Y’ALL BADDIES FUCKING READ OUR SECRETS WE’LL DO SOMETHING NAUGHTY

      We have the technology to find a middle ground.

    • Compadre de Ogum@lemmygrad.ml
      2·
      1 year ago

      federation is supposed to give different levels of control. you can, as a user, block the users and instances (and communities, i suppose).

      instances can also block users and other instances.

      the idea is that contradictory instances wont be in constant conflict. like, a instance called “SuperiorHeterosexual” wont be federated with “GayPower”

      i dont know about lemmy, but there are levels of (des)integration in Mastodon: Silencing, Defederation and Block.

      some admins may shit on proportionality and go on a power trip. that is true. the good thing is that you can create another account in another instance you like and trust the admins more.

      • root@u.fail
        21·
        1 year ago

        I think associating your basic online identity with your sexual preferences is pretty weird in the first place. Maybe I just don’t get how this is supposed to work. It would be bizarre if my email address or other online identity also directly represented what I prefer in the bedroom.

        How do I have an unbiased discussion about gardening or whatever if my address is @gaypower or @whateverhetero

        • Lurco de Candacia@programming.dev
          3·
          1 year ago

          In general, designing an identity around some very specific stances (metalhead, techie, gamer, nerd, political ideologies, sports team) or material qualities (sexual orientation, disabilities, location where you were born) works against your well-being in various ways:

          • You’re socially and mentally wall-gardening yourself.
          • Inbues your whole life with the “us-vs-them” fallacious world that will only cause anxiety, fear and ire.
          • Easier to bottle up in internet bubbles, further polarizing and radicalizing yourself.
          • Detaches you from other realities. Harder to relate to the varied people you find in real life. Everything outside your closed community feels either scary or stupid.
          • It makes you static and unmoving. Harder to actualize yourself.
          • It makes you easier to be exploited by marketing and consumerism targeted towards those demographics/hashtags. This was the main goal behind the media development of 70’s identities (metalhead, punkhead, MTV, jpop): selling merchandise, tickets and ads.