Fediverse

27910 readers

1 users here now

A community to talk about the Fediverse and all it's related services using ActivityPub (Mastodon, Lemmy, KBin, etc).

If you wanted to get help with moderating your own community then head over to [email protected]!

Rules

Posts must be on topic.
Be respectful of others.
Cite the sources used for graphs and other statistics.
Follow the general Lemmy.world rules.

Learn more at these websites: Join The Fediverse Wiki, Fediverse.info, Wikipedia Page, The Federation Info (Stats), FediDB (Stats), Sub Rehab (Reddit Migration), Search Lemmy

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

Why is defederation an option when Limit/Mute exist? (reddthat.com)

submitted 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

47 comments fedilink hide all child comments

In short i just jumped into the whole Mastodon blocking drama and am somewhat disappointed to see it as childish as reddit's power mod drama. Accelerated by the fact that a Limit/Mute option exist just fine, i wonder why Block/Defederation is an option at all. It only moves power from the user to admins without anything in return. With just Mute, as far as i can tell, one still wouldn't have to look on certain instances, but could interact/whitelist certain individuals and we'd get rid of the multi account requirement overnight. So why isn't it that way?

Edit: For those annoyed by the same siloing issues, look into ATProto. Bluesky may be a big unknown, but the protocol itself looks a lot more promising in terms of user freedom.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 13 points 8 months ago (8 children)

no, i don't believe blocking whole instances is a problem. i think you're struggling to find a problem where there isnt one. there are thousands of instances over dozens of different platforms that all intercommunicate. this idea that servers cant block other servers is shortsighted, insecure and frankly, brought by someone who apparently doesnt have experience managing servers or large volumes of humans.

[–] [email protected] -4 points 8 months ago (7 children)

A user should be able to interact with every other user if both wish to.

That's the problem, as that isn't possible right now, unless your twitter circle took just the right instances for themselves. Sure there is self hosting, but down that road of argument eventually everyone will be self hosting.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 8 months ago (1 children)

There have been instances that were defederated for posting nazi / racist content, and CSAM. Do you think that their users should be able to interact with everyone else, or that their content should be stored and hosted on other people's servers?

As far as I understand it, content posted to one server gets stored on every federated server for the other server's users to see. I certainly don't want to see the sort of content that's been defederated from the servers I mentioned.

[–] [email protected] -4 points 8 months ago

As far as I understand it, content posted to one server gets stored on every federated server for the other server's users to see.

This is wrong, else every self hosted instance would've been a storage nightmare.

There have been instances that were defederated for posting nazi / racist content, and CSAM

I assume the later is something CP? Yes, those are legimite cases, just like spam/DdoS, but even then in every case i've seen yet, a Limit would've been enough. A pretty good example seems to be qoto.

load more comments (5 replies)