Last week, this strange mention appeared on my Mastodon feed. After a bit of clicking around, I figured out what had happened. A user on the Kbin social network had linked to my Mastodon profile. Thanks to the magic of the ActivityPub protocol, it filtered into my mentions - even though I've never even heard [...]
I’ve been on the Fediverse since 2016, and I still get a little mixed up by how things work.
I don’t really understand the whole “choose who you federate with”, federation is a server-to-server thing as far as I am aware, and banning whole servers results in some of your users becoming unable to reach all of theirs, incurring a penalty on both sides. I don’t think blocking users based on whoever hosts their account ever makes sense in the general case (it’s a weak argument to prove someone “guilty by association”), and is incredibly unfair (the statement being made is that all users on that instance, without exception, should suffer the consequences of the actions of a few).
Unfortunately there isn’t a finer grained tool. You can ban users, but if the instance they’re from has open sign ups the banned user can just create a new account and return to harassing people on the server. This is the reason that Beehaw defederated with the two earlier this week. They tried everything they could before then, but the tools just aren’t there yet to not punish the whole instance if the instance’s admin isn’t willing to meet part way.
If instances get stricter about federation, I really hope small instances are still allowed to federate with the large ones. For example, I’m running my own Lemmy server just for me, and had no trouble federating. That’s what I really like about the fediverse - my little server is essentially treated no differently to the massive ones. That’s really the point of the fediverse.
It’s very unlikely that big instances will start blocking small ones. It can certainly happen, but I think most people running Lemmy instances are more likely to want to federate. If they don’t they’ll probably run one of the forks that explicitly disable it, so you’ll never know that they exist from your instance.
Choosing who you federate with and then moderating abusive people that slip through anyway is going to be very important.
I don’t really understand the whole “choose who you federate with”, federation is a server-to-server thing as far as I am aware, and banning whole servers results in some of your users becoming unable to reach all of theirs, incurring a penalty on both sides. I don’t think blocking users based on whoever hosts their account ever makes sense in the general case (it’s a weak argument to prove someone “guilty by association”), and is incredibly unfair (the statement being made is that all users on that instance, without exception, should suffer the consequences of the actions of a few).
Unfortunately there isn’t a finer grained tool. You can ban users, but if the instance they’re from has open sign ups the banned user can just create a new account and return to harassing people on the server. This is the reason that Beehaw defederated with the two earlier this week. They tried everything they could before then, but the tools just aren’t there yet to not punish the whole instance if the instance’s admin isn’t willing to meet part way.
Yup, that’s dramatic. The fediverse still has a long way to go.
If instances get stricter about federation, I really hope small instances are still allowed to federate with the large ones. For example, I’m running my own Lemmy server just for me, and had no trouble federating. That’s what I really like about the fediverse - my little server is essentially treated no differently to the massive ones. That’s really the point of the fediverse.
It’s very unlikely that big instances will start blocking small ones. It can certainly happen, but I think most people running Lemmy instances are more likely to want to federate. If they don’t they’ll probably run one of the forks that explicitly disable it, so you’ll never know that they exist from your instance.