I can understand defederating from Threads, but transitive defederation is bordering on insanity.

This will do nothing but exert peer pressure onto instances that wish to remain impartial. Transitive defederation will play right into Meta's hands by fragmenting the Fediverse further.

Yeah, strong arming instances to do something or another based on a personal preference I thought was meta's job, not the fediverses.

The entire point is that each instance should decide for themselves. If they want to defederate with me because I haven't made up my mind yet, then so long I guess, to me that says more about them then it does Meta.

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?

I'll be honest, if this gets adopted I'm out.

Most of these ideas are ridiculous in how they desperately build up windmills to handle a surplus of lances among some fediverse users, but this genuinely applies the very thing you - completely out of nowhere - assume Meta would do to what you're doing: EEE.

You're trying to strong-arm users of AP into your modified version usage guidelines for it entirely to suffocate anyone disagreeing.

That's despicable, even as just an idea.

Splitting the fediverse in half just to get back at Meta is an awful idea.

I'm not so sure that this sort of divisive policy is healthy for the Fediverse. ActivityPub is meant to connect communities, not split them apart. I feel like this is just going to cause even more fragmentation at a time when ActivityPub can really be showing off its capabilities.

I imagine this would dissuade further adoption by other communities.

no thanks. no need to technology a kneejerk reaction to nonexistent problem.

I swear to god the conversation around Meta joining the fediverse has been one of the most annoying things I've had to read about in a while.

We should defederate with any server that has less than 7 degrees of separation with Meta. We can call it the Kevin Bacon rule.

Eh, nah, not as a preemptive thing. If threads users become a problem, then transitive defed is a good option. Otherwise it just makes the whole thing more annoying than it's worth.

also blocking any instance that federates with an instance hosting harassers and hate groups – provides even stronger protection.

Even safer, unplug your router.

Y’all notice that things always talk about “user safety” and such but never detail just how the NAZIS at Threads will continue to interact with their users when the whole-ass domain is blocked.

This is just another purity test.

Meta disgusts me but i cant lie and say the opportunity that my family may without me pushing much may join the fediverse on threads sounds much nicer then the status quo.

I am all for protecting the fediverse from metas ideas so i do support defediration.

With this transistive tool what happens if i am on my own instance, defederated from meta but i dont the transition and federate with a community that is federated with meta.

Could i see threads from my instance trough the federated one?

Is my own instance safe from meta?

Will transistive defederation mean others will automatically defederate with my instance because i federate with an instance that is federated with threads?

Nonsense

We really need better visualization tools for who is federated with what. Meta is just one large / recognizable company to pop into the fediverse. Others will move in over time, and if instances choose to do something like this (defed from any instance that didn't also defed), then it's going to be a complete mess trying to figure out who is federated with what. Those smaller defederated instances will need to be extra clear about who they are federated with and why, otherwise people will avoid them.

I personally think this is a bad choice to make, but instances are free to do as they please.

While my primary masto is a single user instance, basically anywhere else I exist on the fedi is a subset of infosec dot *.

Those instances are all run by someone who a) is cool with spinning up a whole bunch of instances, b) is willing to risk the costs, and c) is excellent at delineating policy. There’s a “no fucking threads full stop” instance, and a “no threads by default, but user can flip switch” instance, for example.

That’s a method of operation that works from my pov but doesn’t suit everyone’s needs. Personally, I want nothing to do with threads but am more able to express my anti corp tendencies than I was in my twenties, and I’m more willing to accept that “it’s just bandwidth, find the instance that meets your needs.”

My needs involve no threads at all, but I can accomplish that with a very small amount of effort given. My circles.

I honestly don’t know what my mastodon instance’s take on blocking threads is but I probably will be blocking them on the account level. Blocking servers transitively because they don’t defederate with meta seems like it is unnecessarily siloing servers into a second “free” fediverse. If a server is moderating their accounts in accordance to the written policy then if they choose to federate with meta, it doesn’t feel like it’s any of my business.