Federation copies content from other instances onto an instance admin's server.
So the instance admin, who is responsible for all content on their server, gets to decide if they want that or not.
this post was submitted on 14 Dec 2023
44 points (81.4% liked)
Fediverse
17710 readers
3 users here now
A community dedicated to fediverse news and discussion.
Fediverse is a portmanteau of "federation" and "universe".
Getting started on Fediverse;
- What is the fediverse?
- Fediverse Platforms
- How to run your own community
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Although I don't think Beehaw blocks sh.itjust.works because it has content that they are uncomfortable hosting. The main reason is (as usual) the comfort of their users, but to help the Fediverse as a whole, instance blocking might be a more constructive approach.
This would likely lead to a lot of content only cached for the 1% of users which change that default which would be quite inefficient for the instance. Not to mention that most admins and mods would likely not see that content so they can not judge the legality of that content (or other reasons to defederate instead).
Not to mention the big reason to defederate isn't just the subs on an instance.
It's users of that but instance getting free reign on posts from other instances to troll or spread hateful bullshit.
OPs "solution" doesn't do anything about that, which why they're wrong and is defederation is better.
With blocking instances I mean also blocking all the users on that instance, which is the case on all platforms that allow it.
load more comments
(8 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
Content isn't cached unless someone follows it anyways.
And I'm not sure what you mean with that latter part; what difference would this make in what content admins can see before they cast their judgement on a server?
What op said still stands: if only one of your users follow a high-traffic, heavy-content /c/, then the server is caching all of that content for one person.
E.g., there's this great bot on Mastodon that posts random fractals, and the highest-voted ones "breed" to create a new generation of child fractals. The bot posts a static image and an animated movie of each new child every 4 hours. The images are ca 5mb each; the movies are between 20 & 40mb ea. That is, on average, 210mb/d, or 1.4gb per week. That's a lot of data. You might, as an admin offering a free service, not want to have to pay for that much storage just because one or two users are suscribed to /c/flamereactor ("FlameReactor" is the name, so you can find this mind-blowingly awesome bot). There's also bandwidth considerations, both on the pull and when users request the content.
I like the idea, though, and will suggest a tweak, tried and true from Usenet days: provide the ability to unblock to only paying users. It'd give admins control, plus money to offset storage costs. Maybe provide three options to admins: full defederation; auto-block with any user able to unblock, for odeous but low impact sices; and auto-block with unblock for only users in some group - close friends, paying users, whatever.
Lemmy could also transcribe content into links back to the source, but that's just punting the bandwidth costs onto someone else, and I wouldn't be surprised if this is frowned upon within The Federation (although it's common practice with Reddit and X(twitter) content).
Mastodon servers typically don't federate images, though. Also, I don't think people will defederate an entire server for one bot anyways.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Admins need to make sure they do not host illegal content. They can not do that if they do not see the content so they would likely still have to look at all of it just for the benefit of the few users on their instance who change the default. Instead they could just defederate and not have to worry about that.
There are great sites like fediseer.com to keep track of suspicious instances. And if those users see illegal content they can report it to the admins.
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.
load more comments
(15 replies)
I believe this would be a great feature.
Yes. That needs to be implemented. It's a bit annoying that Lemmy is still missing that much moderation and usability features.
It already is, you just have to convince the server owner whats 'extreme' or not. Some servers hate liberals, others hate the right, some are followers of the windmill party and others would get you on a watchlist.
And the more mundane stuff like having porn and gore posts not tagged as NSFW will get your instance defederated.
What we actually need is better mod tools
load more comments
(1 replies)
no thank you
If you have a criticism, I'm all ears.
view more: next ›