Default instance blocks should largely replace defederation
Since what content users might want to see is quite unlikely to match which servers the admins tolerate, choosing instance on the Fediverse can be quite complicated, which is inconvenient and off-putting for new users.
For this reason, and simply that the Fediverse is stronger united, I believe defederation should ideally be reserved for illegal content and extreme cases. If Fediverse platforms would allow instances to simply block the rest for users by default, the user experience would be the same, unless they decide otherwise.
No, I wrote that they could be blocked by default but that the users would have the choice to manually opt in.
Edit: Also, the problem is that the instances people want to be on don’t always federate with the instances they want to see content from. Adding an extra server which people have no reason to want to join doesn’t solve anything.
Nah, content doesn’t get federated unless someone follows it. And I said it already I’m not for unconditional federation, if instances do illegal things (which gets well documented, no need to observe it directly), of course you should defederate.
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.
Also, how is moderation not about the user? It’s the user who uses the platform; if they wouldn’t care about them they wouldn’t moderate at all, or run an instance in the first place for that matter.
But surely they won’t just let in guests for their own sake? They’re still doing it as a service for the guests, even if there are terms.
And I’d say that people from federated instances aren’t guests, they are more like people that can talk to your guests. Defederation is more like closing the window between the different parties so that they can’t talk to you because they disturb the peace and quiet. Then it seems entirely reasonable that your guests can still listen to them in a way that doesn’t affect the rest of your party.
Maybe we’re taking this analogy too far. I just think that the promise of the Fediverse is to be able to be talk to anyone no matter where you choose to be and that we should try to keep this promise. Of course you should be able to keep people out if they disrupt, but it should remain a choice to see their content.
I’d say the Fediverse is a lot more ethical than corporate social media, and that it is the responsibility of everyone who is part of it to help keep it open and help it grow.
Indeed, so it seems reasonable to help a countermovement grow. Defederation makes it quite a bit more complicated for new users to choose an instance and for anyone to switch instance, and goes a bit against the idea of open social media.
And if moderation is not done because it’s a choice to see them and they are barred from posting in one’s communities, the cost of federation is not very high (except, perhaps, i, edge cases like Beehaw where there is a very large defederated userbase with which users would like to interact)
I’d say that figure isn’t quite as high. A lot of people for instance really want to be on Beehaw but are elsewhere because they want to be able to see the content outside their very restrictive moderation.
Also, it looks like a significant proportion of the lemm.ee userbase is there because of the open federation. What other appeal does an instance that doesn’t even allow photo uploads have?
Hey – they’ve got trains! But on a more serious note, I do think there are people who want to see the more in-depth political discussion on there. And I’m just saying, it makes joining quite a bit more complicated, and seeing how many people are put off by the sheer existence of different instances, I think it does decrease the ease of entry for many.