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.
I think people should be free to run instances how they want.
Me too. I’m simply trying to spark ideas for devs to give admins more options for how they can run their instances (and also trying to convince admins about what’s best for the Fediverse).
Ask people who face open abuse because of their identity how they feel, and you’ll see that not everyone wants what you want.
If there are people who want me dead, then a response of “tough, you and every other queer person has to block them all yourselves, one by one” isn’t the all in one solution you think it is.
I hear you, and that’s why I’m suggesting the implementation of default instance blocks before more open federation.
Who builds those default lists? Because most social media platforms are tolerant of transphobia for example, as long as it’s “civil”.
No, I mean that admins select instances that are blocked by default for users. Kinda like a soft defederation.
Ok, I can see that. Hard and soft options. The admin can choose whether it can be over ridden by users or not.
Clarification, because people keep misunderstanding my point: What I’m advocating for is replacing most defederation with some sort of “soft defederation” in which instance admins can select domains which are blocked by default for the users, but which they can unblock afterwards if they want to.
That wouldn’t work. I find it strange that some users keep thinking moderation or defederation is somehow about them or to keep them from accessing things. Talk about self-centered to an extreme degree 😅
Defederation is primarily used to keep bad stuff away from an instance and its (volunteer) moderators. Either because it is illegal or because it causes loads of moderation workload in the communities hosted by an instance. Neither of which would your proposal of soft-defederation solve even a single bit.
Well I said that illegal content should still be defederated. And I don’t think soft defederated content has to be moderated, since it’s only a number of users who choose to see it.
Just because few people can see it in the home instance doesn’t mean it isn’t there. And when a community is viewed from remote instances that have a different soft-defederation list all the bad stuff will be publicly visible (and indexed via search engines).
So for example a feminist community would be full of incel posts that are publicly visible almost everywhere.
Okay, that’s entirely fair. I was mostly thinking about the microblogging side of the Fediverse and didn’t quite consider the complexity that it would add to community moderation. I guess better moderation mechanisms could probably account for that, but Lemmy is as of now far away from that.
Edit: One might also solve that by not allowing soft defederated users to post in local communities.
Yes. That needs to be implemented. It’s a bit annoying that Lemmy is still missing that much moderation and usability features.
I believe this would be a great feature.
- java ( @java@beehaw.org ) 1•11 months ago
Let’s say I’m an instance admin. I don’t tolerate some content. Why would I want this content on my server? Why would I allow users to participate in communities I don’t tolerate, produce content I don’t tolerate? As an admin, I can’t just pretend that this isn’t happening. I’ll be getting reports, I would have to act on them. Otherwise, I won’t be able to moderate. It sounds like creating parallel worlds within the same instance to me.
I generally don’t mind, I just think this could bring more problems that it might solve.
Personally I believe that the health of the Fediverse should come before the preferences of individual admins.
And in such cases in which users manually opt into seeing content, reporting makes little sense and they can just block on their own.
- java ( @java@beehaw.org ) 1•11 months ago
The health of the Fediverse depends on individual admins. Would you say that the Fediverse is unhealthy right now, because, for instance, beehaw.org is defederated from some communities, but you’d like to see them? I wouldn’t agree with that. You can always join them and see the content that you like. That’s the whole point of having different instances.
I just thought the entire point of the Fediverse was kind of the ability to access any content, regardless where you choose to be. This is not only directly complicated by defederation, it also adds a whole new layer of complexity for new users, for whom this idea of decentalisation is already quite off-putting.