Maybe I’m missing something, but I don’t understand the point in defederating. Aren’t you just cutting down on the amount of content you can see? As a user I’d personally prefer to pick and choose what I can see.
What’s the actual upside in doing it? Obviously I can see why you’d want defederating from say a far right instance, but in general it seems like only downsides.
I’m new to all this so maybe I’m missing a crucial bit of information.
Aren’t you just cutting down on the amount of content you can see?
Plus, you reduce the amount of content they can see (while logged in). Quoting myself from a similar context (It is about a community on another instance, which is federated with Threads, while your home instance defederated from Threads):
You wont see posts or comments from Threads users in that remote community. You also won’t see reactions to those activities from anyone, anywhere. It’s as if comment chains started by Threads users don’t exist.
Threads will not see posts and comments from you, even if done in communities from instances which are federated with Threads.
There are also more subtle implications. For example, some might find the situation in remote communities which have both federated and defederated qualities confusing (Imagine “see this comment section” when different users see different versions). This might be a reason to avoid these communities, to only visit communities on other instances, which follow your personal policy of de/federating Threads.
The same is probably true for votes. If your instance defederates Threads, you don’t see their votes, and they don’t see yours.
Defederation in this context sends a political signal, which some people find important.
This was not meant as a comprehensive answer, but as counter-examples to your core question (“Aren’t you just …”).
As a user I’d personally prefer to pick and choose what I can see.
You can do that either way, as explained in my previous comment. No matter on which side of the argument you are, use an account on an instance which has a similar policy. You can have many, you can use many. Of course, most people want to use not more than one, which is why they try to make sure their instance’s policy reflects their personal preference, instead of making sure their instance choice reflects their personal preference. In reality, we see both (people influencing their instance, and people choosing their instance), and both is fine.
Further, we need instances which defederate from Threads, so people can choose this option.
I’m new to all this so maybe I’m missing a crucial bit of information.
I get you. I’m also missing a comprehensive, compact list of consequences.
Isn’t it creating a situation of Reddit power mods on steroids? It’s easy to say “well go and make accounts on multiple instances”, but it’s creating additional barriers to entry that a lot of people won’t understand and frankly is kind of irritating as a user.
I feel like people aren’t taking the consequences seriously and that defederating needs to be viewed as like a nuclear option that’s avoided unless absolutely necessary. That’s what I get from the additional information you provided.
This place will become completely unusable in the future if the good will dies out and large instances decide to defederate from each other to try and become the “top” instance, especially as more and more casual users move over.
Isn’t it creating a situation of Reddit power mods on steroids?
Not sure, how do you see that? Isn’t the ability to “vote with your feet” putting a limit on how powerful they can become?
a lot of people won’t understand and frankly is kind of irritating as a user
That’s true. We need to become better at communicating and explaining these situations. I plan to use the wiki more. To have one comprehensive source of truth, which can be linked to, instead of partial explanations scattered across comment sections.
But even then, a distributed model is probably inherently more complex and hader to understand than a centralized solution. The benefit is more resilience against power-hungry tendencies.
Realistically most people aren’t going to make their own instance, so you kind of have to rely on the good will of others.
Purely as an example, let’s say that Lemmy world decides they no longer want to be federated with ML because of the Meta situation. If you’re on either world or ML now you’ve lost access to huge sections of Lemmy. This could basically go on forever, so any instance that wants to remain neutral can be locked out of either both or one of them as they keep defederating from instances until the whole thing becomes a walled garden, basically the same as if you upset a power mod on Reddit and lose access to huge sections of the site, except it’s worse on here because you wouldn’t even be able to lurk.
I guess you could just have multiple accounts, but we could easily see a situation where you need like 10 accounts just to see the most popular instances, which is obviously ridiculous and not practical unless you’re terminally online.
It seems like a pretty huge flaw in the system, to be honest. Theoretically it’s a good idea, but as more and more people flock to the large instances it seems like it’s only a matter of time before the power plays start to happen.
Is there anything at all to stop that happening? It’s seems inevitable to me that eventually the whole thing will fall apart if people abuse the system.
If what you describe is severe enough, that’s a significant disadvantage of being registered on a big instance, and using communities which are hosted on a big instance. Which in turn makes smaller instances and smaller communities more appealing.
I think it’s self-regulating. The transitional period (like the current reddit exodus) is always a bit rough. Long term, things will survive which are fine for all participants.
Worst case, it’s always much easier to move within the fediverse than it is to move between entirely different platforms and ecosystems. Yes, power plays and nasty circumstances are possible, but moving inside the fediverse is so much easier compared to the outside world. And being able to move is a safeguard against bad conditions.
Maybe I’m missing something, but I don’t understand the point in defederating. Aren’t you just cutting down on the amount of content you can see? As a user I’d personally prefer to pick and choose what I can see.
What’s the actual upside in doing it? Obviously I can see why you’d want defederating from say a far right instance, but in general it seems like only downsides.
I’m new to all this so maybe I’m missing a crucial bit of information.
Plus, you reduce the amount of content they can see (while logged in). Quoting myself from a similar context (It is about a community on another instance, which is federated with Threads, while your home instance defederated from Threads):
There are also more subtle implications. For example, some might find the situation in remote communities which have both federated and defederated qualities confusing (Imagine “see this comment section” when different users see different versions). This might be a reason to avoid these communities, to only visit communities on other instances, which follow your personal policy of de/federating Threads.
The same is probably true for votes. If your instance defederates Threads, you don’t see their votes, and they don’t see yours.
Defederation in this context sends a political signal, which some people find important.
This was not meant as a comprehensive answer, but as counter-examples to your core question (“Aren’t you just …”).
You can do that either way, as explained in my previous comment. No matter on which side of the argument you are, use an account on an instance which has a similar policy. You can have many, you can use many. Of course, most people want to use not more than one, which is why they try to make sure their instance’s policy reflects their personal preference, instead of making sure their instance choice reflects their personal preference. In reality, we see both (people influencing their instance, and people choosing their instance), and both is fine.
Further, we need instances which defederate from Threads, so people can choose this option.
I get you. I’m also missing a comprehensive, compact list of consequences.
Isn’t it creating a situation of Reddit power mods on steroids? It’s easy to say “well go and make accounts on multiple instances”, but it’s creating additional barriers to entry that a lot of people won’t understand and frankly is kind of irritating as a user.
I feel like people aren’t taking the consequences seriously and that defederating needs to be viewed as like a nuclear option that’s avoided unless absolutely necessary. That’s what I get from the additional information you provided.
This place will become completely unusable in the future if the good will dies out and large instances decide to defederate from each other to try and become the “top” instance, especially as more and more casual users move over.
Not sure, how do you see that? Isn’t the ability to “vote with your feet” putting a limit on how powerful they can become?
That’s true. We need to become better at communicating and explaining these situations. I plan to use the wiki more. To have one comprehensive source of truth, which can be linked to, instead of partial explanations scattered across comment sections.
But even then, a distributed model is probably inherently more complex and hader to understand than a centralized solution. The benefit is more resilience against power-hungry tendencies.
Realistically most people aren’t going to make their own instance, so you kind of have to rely on the good will of others.
Purely as an example, let’s say that Lemmy world decides they no longer want to be federated with ML because of the Meta situation. If you’re on either world or ML now you’ve lost access to huge sections of Lemmy. This could basically go on forever, so any instance that wants to remain neutral can be locked out of either both or one of them as they keep defederating from instances until the whole thing becomes a walled garden, basically the same as if you upset a power mod on Reddit and lose access to huge sections of the site, except it’s worse on here because you wouldn’t even be able to lurk.
I guess you could just have multiple accounts, but we could easily see a situation where you need like 10 accounts just to see the most popular instances, which is obviously ridiculous and not practical unless you’re terminally online.
It seems like a pretty huge flaw in the system, to be honest. Theoretically it’s a good idea, but as more and more people flock to the large instances it seems like it’s only a matter of time before the power plays start to happen.
Is there anything at all to stop that happening? It’s seems inevitable to me that eventually the whole thing will fall apart if people abuse the system.
If what you describe is severe enough, that’s a significant disadvantage of being registered on a big instance, and using communities which are hosted on a big instance. Which in turn makes smaller instances and smaller communities more appealing.
I think it’s self-regulating. The transitional period (like the current reddit exodus) is always a bit rough. Long term, things will survive which are fine for all participants.
Worst case, it’s always much easier to move within the fediverse than it is to move between entirely different platforms and ecosystems. Yes, power plays and nasty circumstances are possible, but moving inside the fediverse is so much easier compared to the outside world. And being able to move is a safeguard against bad conditions.