Discussion about ClubsAll (sh.itjust.works)

submitted 7 months ago by kersploosh@sh.itjust.works to c/main@sh.itjust.works

35 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Hello, sh.itjust.works community. I am curious what you think about ClubsAll, and whether you think we should stay federated with them. A few other Lemmy instances have recently defederated so this seems like a timely topic for discussion.

In short, ClubsAll is an ActivityPub-compatible Reddit clone. The site currently has one-way federation with no attribution: ClubsAll pulls content from Lemmy and displays it as local ClubsAll content. For example, you can visit https://clubsall.com/c/196 and there is no indication that the content is from https://lemmy.blahaj.zone/c/196.

Here are relevant posts with more information and context:

General discussion: Let's talk about ClubsAll (the ClubsAll founder left comments in this post)
Recent update to that general discussion: As a reminder, ClubsAll is still showing all of Lemmy's content without federating back

In the first post the ClubsAll founder commented that they plan to eventually have two-way federation, and to make the project open source. Whether those things actually happens is anyone's guess.

What do you think?

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

[-] kersploosh@sh.itjust.works 16 points 7 months ago

I will leave my personal opinions down here in the comments.

On one hand, no harm is being done. It's possible this is a temporary situation due to ClubsAll being young and in development. Also, all our data on Lemmy is public anyway; we cannot stop others from scraping it.

On the other hand, on principle I don't like one-way interaction and the way ClubsAll presents Lemmy content as their own. It feels deceptive. Defederation would be a symbolic way to protest that behavior.

I am torn. At the moment I am slightly in favor of defederation.

[-] Enkers@sh.itjust.works 20 points 7 months ago

How about giving some leeway if they have indicated the intent to fully federate? Say, if they don't support bidirectional federation with 6 months (?), they will be defederated provisionally until they do. That way, we're still taking their declared intent in good faith, but not being a pushover.

[-] vinay_clubsall@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago

Thank you. I request the defederation being traffic based rather than time based. Would that be fair?

[-] Enkers@sh.itjust.works 2 points 7 months ago

I mean, ultimately I'm just a user making a suggestion, of what sort of approach seems fair. I'm not certain what a reasonable time (or traffic) limit would be, exactly. I think if you were to make a suggestion to the admins, they'd likely accept it so long as it's reasonable.

load more comments (6 replies)

load more comments (22 replies)

this post was submitted on 13 Dec 2024

25 points (96.3% liked)

sh.itjust.works Main Community

8200 readers

2 users here now

Home of the sh.itjust.works instance.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

TheDude@sh.itjust.works

manifex@sh.itjust.works

biela@sh.itjust.works

imaqtpie@sh.itjust.works