this post was submitted on 17 Jun 2023
213 points (99.1% liked)

Technology

37712 readers
224 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Like many, when the recent defederation went down, I decided to create a couple other logins and see what the wider fediverse has had to say about it.

I've been, honestly, a bit surprised by the response. A huge portion of people seem to be misidentifying communities as belonging to "lemmy" as opposed to the instances that host them. I think a big portion of this seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of what this software is, and how it works.

For example, lemmy.world users are pissed at being de-federated because it excludes them from Beehaw communities. This outrage seems wholly placed in the concept that Beehaw's communities are "owned" by the wider fediverse. This is blatantly not how lemmy works. Each instance hosts a copy of federated instances' content for their users to peruse. The host (Beehaw in this example) remains being the source of truth for these communities. As the source of truth, Beehaw "owns" the affected communities, and it seems people have not realized that.

This also has wider implications for why one might want to de-federate with a wider array of instances. Lets say I have a server in a location that legally prohibits a certain type of pornography. If my users subscribe to other instances/communities that allow that illegal pornography, I (the server admin) may find myself in legal jeopardy because my instance now holds a copy of that content for my users.

Please keep this in mind as you enjoy your time using Lemmy. The decisions that you make affect the wider instance. As you travel the fediverse, please do so with the understanding that your interactions reflect this instance. More than anything, how can we spread this knowledge to a wider audience? How can we make the fediverse and how it works less confusing to people who aren't going to read technical documentation?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] trachemys@iusearchlinux.fyi 17 points 1 year ago (5 children)

Federation/Fediverse should mean a user of any instance should be able to use any community. Gated communities shouldn’t be the expected norm. So, I would agree with the lemmy.world people who are upset at being broadly blocked from a Fediverse community. But it doesn’t matter because beehaw says it is temporary.

[–] rknuu@beehaw.org 33 points 1 year ago (2 children)

This is true, except for one element:

Fediverse should mean a user of any instance should be able to use any community the instance elects to federate with. Lemmy is open by design, but instances can just as easily switch that feature off and go to a allowlist method.

A commonly missed element with federation is that you federate with who you trust since you essentially mirror their content. It's less apparent with the lemmy migration, but mastodon used to caution its users to "join an instance that aligns with your preferences" for this reason.

Federation is really a philosophy about mutual trust, just like how email providers can block messages by user, instance, or domain.

Trust me, there's likely more gating present than you're aware of. Maybe not at lemmy.world (which as of this post is only blocking one site for reasons I won't mention), but this can get dark pretty quick if you leave things completely open.

[–] klangcola@reddthat.com 19 points 1 year ago (1 children)

A major instance (in terms of comunities) like Beehaw changing from denylist to Allowlist would be devastating for users on small and single-user instances, so I hope it never comes to that. Unless there's some process to get hundreds of tiny unknow instances in the Allowlist

I think some people see Lemmy as a way to host their own self-supported community on their own server, with users identifying strongly with the values of the instance, and with cohesion among the users of the instance.

While other people (me included) see instances more as something to just host the account, so we can participate in Commities across "the network", where "the network" is basically all the Lemmy instances except the de-federated extremists, or other walled gardens. User-cohesion is more on the Community-level and less on the Instance-level.

Do we want a small network of instances that have proven themselves trustworthy? Or do we want a large network of instances that have yet to prove themselves untrustworthy? Different people will have different answers

You do bring up a good point about needing to trust your federated instances because you're essentially mirroring their content

[–] david 4 points 1 year ago

This is the kind of respectful, well informed, nuanced debate that I used to have on reddit and missed terribly until I joined the fediverse. I'm worried it's going to take some fairly firm moderation to keep it from nastifying in the future.

There's a bit of a culture clash going on in these defederation debates between the "yay it's the wild west, reddit admins can't tell us what to do, we can go anywhere and do anything" folks on the one hand and the "yay it's collaborative, reddit admins can't tell us what to do, we can build community and do our own thing and have our own rules" folks on the other.

I think that just as much as we as individuals can go where we like and interact with what we want, mods can set up whatever instances they want with whatever rules and federation boundaries they want.

Sooner or later two people's freedoms bump into each other and someone's desired freedom to say something hits someone else's desired freedom from hearing something.

I think that painting defederation as a destabilising nuclear option that will kill the fediverse is as extreme as saying the same of moderation. The mods at beehaw decided that defederation was the best solution in the short term to some problems including some highly nasty content that pretty much everyone condemns, without themselves becoming overwhelmed. I respect that. Beehaw is, as far as I can tell, a great place, and I'm sure it takes a lot of work to keep it that way. The beautiful and intricate garden you're walking through might not be able to exist without the wall separating it from the pigs next to it. I know you're not a pig, but also you know that the wall isn't a huge deal, given that there's a gate.

[–] Cipher@beehaw.org 4 points 1 year ago

Thank you for phrasing my point so eloquently.

[–] Cipher@beehaw.org 29 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I don't think that assertion is based in reality. A server has to be hosted somewhere, and admins will generally choose to uphold those local regulations for the sake of their instance's own longevity. Federation has never meant that you communicate with literally every other instance. This isn't Tor where nodes pass along communications that don't directly involve themselves.

[–] trachemys@iusearchlinux.fyi 11 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Two separate issues are prompting “defederation”. Blocking users from posting to your local community and blocking remote communities from being mirrored on your server. Those should be handled differently. Beehaw didn’t want trolls posting mean things and blocked every user on a server. Your concern about illegal content would be more a complaint about specific communities that feature that content.

Either way you shouldn’t blame an entire server for a few users or communities you don’t want. Expecting everyone on a instance to be like minded isn’t going to work.

[–] Cipher@beehaw.org 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The only way to not address things on a per-server basis is for moderation tools to be expanded in scope. Maybe that will be how things work one day, but it is not how things can work right now.

[–] trachemys@iusearchlinux.fyi 4 points 1 year ago

Completely understandable. I am not opposed to moderation or keeping people safe from harassment.

[–] RoboRay@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If that's the only way to stop harassment, yes, you do... anyone on that instance that isn't like-minded with the behavior that instance permits is well-advised to leave it for one better suited to their own beliefs.

[–] trachemys@iusearchlinux.fyi 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Are you then opposed to open registration on instances?

[–] RoboRay@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I'm not opposed to any process on any instance that enforces civil behavior on its registered users. Moderation is mandatory to eliminate defederation as the only way to handle the problem.

If you refuse to moderate your instance, you forfeit any right to complain about your instance getting defederated.

But these things are still too young and primitive for good moderation tools to really exist yet... yet. If your users are getting your instance defederated, maybe that's a problem you should work on.

[–] polaroid@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago

It's a stopgap measure until better moderating tools are developed. I can't blame them for it.

[–] Hotchpotch@beehaw.org 24 points 1 year ago (1 children)

By that line of reasoning all alt-right, homophobe, harassing, doxxing, trolling etc. instances should be allowed to access every other instance to spread their hate. Is that really what you want? I don't.

[–] trachemys@iusearchlinux.fyi 9 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Why do you think entire instances will be devoted to that? You will have to block every instance that has open registration, since any open instance cannot guarantee one of the people you mentioned will not come in. I guess the issue I have is that I see moderation as something between users and communities. Not that the overall instance should be doing the moderation.

[–] cnnrduncan@beehaw.org 24 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Because entire instances have already devolved to that and thus been blocked by the wider fediverse.

[–] alyaza@beehaw.org 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

yeah this is like everything on our defederation list besides lemmygrad, shitjustworks, and lemmyworld--we're literally using a block list which is dedicated to those kinds of instances

[–] Melody@lemmy.one 3 points 1 year ago

So what happened with lemmyworld?

[–] freeman@lemmy.pub 2 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Is there a central place to track these instances?. Or do you all have a text list or the reasons you defederated some that you may be open to sharing (even privately). I was looking for something specifically to avoid things like illegal content and the like.

[–] cura@beehaw.org 6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

The defederated list does not include reasons and we can’t add it from Lemmy’s tools. The Lemmy instances we’ve defederated from memory are : Hexbear.net and Lemmygrad.ml because they deny certain genocides, exploding-heads.com and lemmygrad.com because they are queerphobic, burggit.moe because they host child pornography.

https://beehaw.org/comment/300942

[–] TKilFree@beehaw.org 2 points 1 year ago

You might be interested to know that, as luck would have it, this was the first issue I picked up when scrolling through looking for a good introductory task to get used to the project: https://github.com/LemmyNet/lemmy/pull/3168

So this might change in the not-too-distant future (I haven't started doing any frontend work to support it yet though).

[–] freeman@lemmy.pub 2 points 1 year ago

Nice thanks. Added those to my list at least. Beehaw has a ton, and frankly I dont even want to click through some on grounds of well...CSAM stuff ala burggit.moe etc

[–] PenguinTD@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I think a blind trust of such list is kinda dangerous. But a common place where admins and user can tag and rate instances and hosted communities can be a good start.

[–] freeman@lemmy.pub 2 points 1 year ago

Agree. Kinda what I was asking/looking for.

I’m a bit new to running an instance. There seem to be tools created for finding instances and communities. But not something that does the above.

[–] rs5th@lemmy.scottlabs.io 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] freeman@lemmy.pub 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Yeah i see that, but that doesnt really list the reasons some were removed. So prior to @alyaza@beehaw.org's comment I was kinda wondering why some may or may not have been dropped from beehaw.

[–] rs5th@lemmy.scottlabs.io 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

There’s no function in lemmy to track reasons in the admin interface, it’s a text box where you pass in a list of blocked instances. The Beehaw admins may maintain a list separately.

[–] freeman@lemmy.pub 4 points 1 year ago

Im aware. Thats why I was asking the admin if they were open to sharing such a possible list, even privately. It would help me save time. Heck it could be a github list we could share (again even privately) if I ran across new instances. They are sprouting up all over the place, mines not really an exception there either.

They have lists of blocked and linked instances: https://beehaw.org/instances

[–] Hotchpotch@beehaw.org 7 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Some are run or overrun by those kind of people. Have a look at how many instances are already defederated: https://beehaw.org/instances

[–] trachemys@iusearchlinux.fyi 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

We sure, I can understand Defederation from “skinheads.social”. I’m more concerned with large instances like lemmy.world who just are rather wide-open. I wonder if large open instances are just bad.

[–] cnnrduncan@beehaw.org 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The Admins here have been pretty open about the fact that they're keen on re-federating with large instances once better moderation tools are available!

[–] ResidualBit@beehaw.org 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

That's exactly it. Open signups and the volume that comes with that just highlights the lack of comprehensive moderation tools at the moment, certainly within instances, but also cross-instance - lots of very active conversations happening on this front though!

[–] davehtaylor@beehaw.org 1 points 1 year ago

Gods, the names on the list of blocked instances. JFC

[–] prlang@beehaw.org 9 points 1 year ago (2 children)

My understanding is that people from Lenny.world can still “use” behaw by subscribing to communities and commenting on posts, but people on Behaw just can’t see them. Is that not how it works?

I have to say I chose behaw because I wanted a more heavily modded experience here. I really don’t mind them shadow banning whole communities if a disproportionate number of trolls are coming over from them. People have got the right to speak, not the right to be heard. The internet’s full of kids just wanting to be obnoxious, and I’ve got to say I’m more then happy that other humans are helping me to filter that junk out

[–] rknuu@beehaw.org 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Unfortunately, defederating means the cord has been cut. This means we still have what was previously been posted, but all future content is bidirectionally blocked.

[–] dethleffs@feddit.nl 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This doesn't mean it cant be mended.

[–] rknuu@beehaw.org 2 points 1 year ago

This is also correct, and we're hoping we can do so sooner rather than later. 😉

[–] Cipher@beehaw.org 23 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

When a Lemmy.World user posts to a Beehaw community right now, it updates the cached community that Lemmy.World stores. Beehaw has defederated with them, so the "source of truth" never updates. The source of truth is what updates other federated instances. As a result, someone on startrek.website, for example, will not see posts made by lemmy.world users to beehaw communities. The only people who can see what lemmy.world users post to beehaw right now are other lemmy.world users.

[–] maynarkh@feddit.nl 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Won't that cause a major problem if/when Beehaw would want to refederate, and all that pent up stuff just pours on Beehaw all at once?

[–] Cipher@beehaw.org 7 points 1 year ago

When/if refederation happens, the comments lost to the abyss will stay lost to the abyss. The source of truth will not update based on the past updates of a formerly defederated instance to my understanding

[–] Danar@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 1 year ago

As far as I understand it (though it may be incorrect) - they won't be synchronized. Content between instances is synced/cached only when the instances are federated, and it doesn't go backwards - only posts after federation will be visible.

[–] Wander@kbin.social 7 points 1 year ago

Just because this software can be used that way, doesn't mean you're required to use it that way.

If I want to start a lemmy server and not let lemmy.world in, there's nothing wrong with that.

Lemmy.world isn't owed anything, they're not owed to view content in my community, they're not owed that I show their content to my users. And if my users are unhappy with that, that's fine, it's their choice to stay in my enclosed community or not.

Just because we're running the same software and the same communication protocols doesn't change that.