I apologize if this has been asked before, but I’m wondering if it would be feasible to implement a new approach to defederation that offers the option of choosing between complete or partial defederation from another instance.

Currently, defederation blocks both the locally made posts on the defederated instance and its entire userbase. This can be excessive, and in many cases it may be better to block only the posts made on the other instance while still allowing its users to interact with the instance that defederated — user behavior may differ between their home instance and other instances. This partial defederation (or limited federation) would facilitate normal interaction without negatively affecting the content of a feed.

Problematic users could be managed on a case-by-case basis using bans, similar to how it is done for federated instances. Automated tools could simplify this process in the future. Complete defederation would still be necessary in extreme cases where no positive user interactions are expected, such as with instances that promote Nazism.

Instances are being forced to choose between a sledgehammer and nothing at all, and I think a compromise is warranted. I’m curious to read others’ thoughts on how to solve this existing challenge.

EDIT: I added a rough sketch that outlines the proposal. On the left side is the system as it works now and on the right side are two possible scenarios for limited federation (1 direction or bidirectional)

  • melonplant@latte.isnot.coffeeEnglish
    3·
    1 year ago

    Splitting hairs, but I think rather than implementing a partial defederation, I think it would be better to set user rights for a given federation instance. Some federations you might want to allow view only access, access to a certain “tier” of communities, etc. Make the rights customizable so its as granular as needed by the server.

    • OrangeSlice@lemmy.mlMEnglish
      2·
      1 year ago

      I have a feeling that given a couple of years, things will settle out a bit and be more like Mastodon.

      Could you imagine if your ISP/Gmail was so particular about what servers you could send email to?

      There will always be valid reasons to defederate, although I think the bar for that is going to end up pretty high and well-defined in the future, but it’s sort of an organic process to get there.

  • Bizzle@lemmy.worldEnglish
    2·
    1 year ago

    Beehaw feels like it’s ran by power tripping mods hiding behind toxic positivity and I’m not sad they defederated. I wouldn’t denigrate anybody for preferring it but I personally like a little more freedom.

    • Ghostalmedia@lemmy.worldEnglish
      1·
      1 year ago

      At the very least this move highlighted a big problem with the Fediverse that needs to be ironed out. So I guess that’s good.

    • DarkGamer@kbin.social
      1·
      1 year ago

      It seems like defederating harms the ones who do it, as it provides incentives for users who want to access both servers to go to a 3rd party. From kbin I can currently see both.

  • socialjusticewizard@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    2·
    1 year ago

    I’d suggest that beehaw’s concerns could be met with a tool that lets you disable posting or voting from off-instance users unless they meet threshold criteria, whether it be account age or post history or manual approval. That would allow you to keep your content interaction controlled without the nuclear option of complete removal.

    • 00111010_01000100@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      4·
      1 year ago

      Yeah people are not going to migrate over if they hear they can’t interact with everyone. “Be careful which instance you sign up with because other instances may have blacklisted you, but I can’t tell you which home instance to use because it might get overloaded.”

      • RomanRoy@lemmy.worldEnglish
        1·
        1 year ago

        Things will settle. There will be a lot of split communities at first, but in due time it will be more consolidated.

        So in more exclusive instances they will have their own communities on a matter if their users need it, but I expect the more general ones to be the go-to for the majority, even if in different instances.

  • this@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    1·
    1 year ago

    I would even say that at least 3 tiers of defederation are nessesary:

    1. Remote instance users can interact with local instance by posting and commenting on local instance, but remote communities are blocked on local instance

    2. Remote users can see posts/comments from local instance, but not the other way around and commenting and posting is disabled both ways

    3. Full defederation as it works right now. Neither instance can see content from the other.

  • CeruleanRuin@lemmy.oneEnglish
    1·
    1 year ago

    I think this discussion is extra important with the recent and ongoing influx of new users, many of whom don’t have a clue what criteria to use when choosing an instance. Plenty of new folk who have no real affiliation with whatever taint their instance might have due to its admin.

  • Rohbtc@kbin.social
    1·
    1 year ago

    I disagree. I think you should either federate fully or not at all.

    Why should we let instances browse and comment in our communites without reciprocity?

  • piece@feddit.itEnglish
    0·
    1 year ago

    I’m out of the loop, could someone explain what happened?

    All I know is that Beehaw defederated (or was defederated by) someone because of trolls?