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

[–] Chozo@kbin.social 11 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Right, but what this will end up doing is effectively creating two distinct Fediverses; one with Meta and all the users, and one that will sequester themselves off to an even smaller corner of the internet than before. That's not a healthy outcome. And if all the EEE(E?) rants and ravings people have been posting lately are to be believed, that'll only make these smaller communities even less able to resist Meta's influence.

[–] Excrubulent@slrpnk.net -2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

You said:

ActivityPub is meant to connect communities, not split them apart.

This is just blatantly wrong. I was addressing this and only this.

I don't know if I agree with transitive defederation, I did not take a position on it, and I don't know why you're trying to argue it with me except that you know this kumbayah crap isn't a position you can argue.

I just know BS when I smell it, and I'm sick of smelling this particular kind.

[–] Chozo@kbin.social 6 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Okay, but that's a disingenuous argument to be making. Yes, AP is designed with the options to block instances, but that's not the core function it's built around. That's a failsafe, not the selling feature that would make communities adopt it. Communities can already exist without federating with other platforms: by running their own, non-AP platform in the first place. The developers of AP didn't say "I want to make a protocol built around blocking connections".

Nobody buys a car for its brakes, but you still need to have them for safety purposes. Defederation is pumping said brakes. It's a necessary feature, but not the main point of the car.

[–] Excrubulent@slrpnk.net -4 points 10 months ago (1 children)

A car without brakes is a death trap. You use brakes exactly in proportion to how much you use the accelerator. Your analogy is garbage. It's like saying "you have a house for the space inside, not for the roof overhead". It's nonsensical.

Federation and defederation are two sides of the same coin. The one is the shadow of the other. Interpersonal boundaries are necessary for healthy relationships IRL, and they mainly come into play when telling people no, not when telling them yes. AP was absolutely designed with disconnection in mind. We know that because it's a core function. If you want to tell me otherwise then you need to give me a quote, and then explain to me why I should care what the designer thinks anyway.

Pretending federation is about connection and not disconnection is disingenuous. It's meaningless fluff that as far as I can tell is perfectly suited to convincing people to let their guard down, and may well have been designed for that purpose.

[–] Chozo@kbin.social 7 points 10 months ago (1 children)

explain to me why I should care what the designer thinks anyway

Because they're the ones who ultimately control the future of the AP protocol. How it behaves today may not be how it behaves tomorrow. If their intent was to create communities that are isolated islands on the internet, they would've just made a new phpBB. So understanding their design philosophy is going to be important when it comes to running a community on that protocol.

[–] Excrubulent@slrpnk.net -2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

What matters is what can be done with the protocol. Defederation is baked in at this point, and if it goes off the rails we can just fork it.

And I can see you don't have anything to back up your claim that federation is somehow an unimportant side feature of federation.

[–] orgrinrt@lemmy.world 4 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Man, you had a good point initially, but now you’re just really stubbornly defending a position you must realize is a really thin one. You’re arguing that they implied defederation isn’t important, but that’s a straw man you yourself constructed, not what they said at all.

I think you might have lost sight of what’s rational for pride or something.

[–] Excrubulent@slrpnk.net 0 points 10 months ago

you’re just really stubbornly defending a position you must realize is a really thin one. [...] that’s a straw man you yourself constructed [...] I think you might have lost sight of what’s rational for pride or something.

All of this is pure projection. You don't need to invent an elaborate fantasy about what a bad thinky person I am in order to make a point, if you have one.

You’re arguing that they implied defederation isn’t important, but that’s a straw man you yourself constructed, not what they said at all.

And this fucking bullshit is just gaslighting. The thread is still here, at least for now. I can read it.