Instances in the free fediverses should consider "transitive defederation" from instances that federate with Meta (privacy.thenexus.today)

submitted 10 months ago by thenexusofprivacy@lemmy.blahaj.zone to c/fediverse@lemmy.world

142 comments fedilink hide all child comments

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.blahaj.zone/post/7477620

Transitive defederation -- defederating from instances that federate with Threads as well as defederating from Threads -- isn't likely to be an all-or-nothing thing in the free fediverses. Tradeoffs are different for different people and instances. This is one of the strengths of the fediverse, so however much transitive defederation there winds up being, I see it as overall as a positive thing -- although also messy and complicated.

The recommendation here is for instances to consider #TransitiveDefederation: discuss, and decide what to do. I've also got some thoughts on how to have the discussion -- and the strategic aspects.

(Part 7 of Strategies for the free fediverses )

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

[-] Zak@lemmy.world 43 points 10 months ago

I understand the argument for servers blocking Threads/Meta. It doesn't strike me as the right choice for every server, but it's clearly a good choice for some servers. Threads doesn't moderate the way many fediverse servers would like their peers to, and Meta is generally an ill-behaved company. Blocking it is appropriate for servers emphasizing protection for vulnerable users, and inappropriate for servers trying to be big and open. The fediverse is great because people can choose what's right for them.

I do not, however understand the argument for blocking servers that do not block Threads and I think the article could be improved with a more thorough explanation. Maybe there's something I'm missing about the mechanics at work here, but isn't one's own server blocking Threads enough to keep Threads users from being able to interact?

[-] thenexusofprivacy@lemmy.blahaj.zone -3 points 10 months ago

It's good feedback, thanks -- I thought I had enough of explanation in the article but maybe I should put in more. Blocking Threads keeps Threads userws from being able to directly interact with you, but it doesn't prevent indirect interactions: people on servers following quoting or replying to Threads posts, causing toxicity on your feeds (often called "second-hand smoke"); hate groups on Threads encouragiingtheir followers in the fediverse to harass people; and for people who have stalkers or are being targeted by hate groups Threads, replies to your posts by people who have followers on Threads going there and revealing information.

[-] Carighan@lemmy.world 5 points 10 months ago

What about non-meta toxicity? Does the same argument apply for all sources of toxicity? And to what degree does transitivity apply?

[-] amju_wolf@pawb.social 5 points 10 months ago

Why not judge these instances on their own merit though? If what you say becomes true and is so problematic and rampant that it needs addressing, you can block that instance. But doing so preemptively seems petty and counterproductive at best.

What if there is an instance that selectively reposts from Threads only decent, thoughtful discussions?

Oh and as a side note; if you're worried about stuff getting more mainstream, toxic and polarized that's kinda inevitable if you want more people using the fediverse, that's just how it is when lots of differently thinking people are in one place.

[-] Zak@lemmy.world 4 points 10 months ago

Thanks for the explanation. Those do sound like significant issues for people at high risk for targeted harassment which wouldn't be obvious to those of us fortunate enough not to have had that experience.