There have been multiple accounts created with the sole purpose of posting advertisement posts or replies containing unsolicited advertising.

Accounts which solely post advertisements, or persistently post them may be terminated.

Tame your inner dictator!

Everywhere I look there are people advocating for defederation from this and that! Do you even understand what you’re suggesting? Do you get what’s the point of decentralized social media and activity pub?

This is supposed to be free and accessible for everyone. We all have brains and can decide who to interact with.

If meta or any other company manages to create a better product it’s just natural that people tend to use it. I won’t use it, you may not use it and it’s totally fine! It’s about having options. Also as Mastodon’s CEO pointed out there’s no privacy concern, everything stays on your instance.

Edit: after reading and responding to many comments, I should point out that I’m not against defederation in general. It’s a great feature if used properly. Problem is General Instances with open sign-ups and tens of thousands of users making decisions on par of users and deciding what they can and can not see.

If you have a niche or small community with shared and agreed upon values, defederating can be great. But I believe individual users are intelligent enough to choose.

yotamasom ,

Is there a service where you can see who defederation from whom?

Machefi ,

Defederating “from this and that” is actually sometimes problematic here. It’s about instance admins finding balance between freedom and usability (limiting spam and hate). Beehaw.org defederated from lemmy.world and sh.itjust.works, lemmy.world defederated from exploding-heads.com etc. These decisions were controversial, but they weren’t bold. On the contrary, much thought and care went into these and that can be seen in communities’ support for them (in case of Beehaw, along with hopeful awaiting of refederation by users and admins alike).

But that seems not to be the main issue you’re presenting. Defederating from Threads specifically is an entirely different matter. And people who advocate for it, including myself, have more arguments for it than just privacy.

Though it's not the main point of my comment, I'm gonna list some such arguments, simply to back my words.- The EEE. Meta could (and quite probably will) try to federate with its millions of users, then use extended protocols putting pressure on Fediverse to adapt, in order to satisfy Meta’s users. They can make it difficult to keep up (e.g. by providing purposely flawed documentation) and the users will grow tired of stuff not working here but working there. Once users register with Meta (since it’s a part of the Fediverse after all, right?), they’ll cut the rest of us loose. - Badly moderated content. Facebook is already full of it. - Meta has a history of terrible actions and should not be supported.

problematicconsumer OP ,
@problematicconsumer@lemmy.world avatar

Thanks for this great comment! Yes, I totally agree with your arguments and personally hate meta. My problem is posts like this and misinformation about underlying tech (like privacy and ads). Meta will do anything to be the sole winner, but as I’ve pointed here it’s a dilemma and defederating can actually encourage more users to stop using Fediverse to begin with!

piecat ,

We have a unique opportunity. Hitching ourselves to the same corporate social media we’re trying to avoid is counterproductive.

We don’t need everyone and their cousin to be federated. There’s plenty of other social media if you want that experience.

nanook ,

I'm of the opinion, start your own node and do whatever the fuck you want.

lividhen ,
@lividhen@kbin.social avatar

We are trying to prevent a repeat of Google with xmpp.

hernanca ,

This and having a fuckton of scummy users being sent our way by accounts like Libs of TikTok. Harassment will be unbearable and large-scale, especially for tiny instances.

Hegar ,
@Hegar@kbin.social avatar

If meta or any other company manages to create a better product it’s just natural that people tend to use it. ... It’s about having options

We can't rely on the illusion of an even playing field to limit the influence of predatory capital like zukerberg's. Big social media products are designed around the chemistry of decision making in the brain - they can win using an inferior, exploitative product with the worst user experience that could possibly bear profits.

I'm not necessarily in favor of defed-ing anything that zuck's claws are in, but I think it's very important to be wary of what opening the door for one of the world's most genocide-encouraging social media companies could mean.

intensely_human ,

You know what else is designed around “the chemistry of decision-making in the brain”?

Every attempt at persuasion. All debate, marketing, art, seduction, all of it.

The brain makes decisions via chemistry.

As one of my favorite psych professors always likes to say: “The question isn’t why people do cocaine. That’s completely obvious. The question is why doesn’t everybody do cocaine all day every day.”

And his answer to that question is that there are higher-order patterns which can exert even more powerful decision-making influence than dopaminergic drugs. The thing is, those patterns are called “meaning” and they’re nicely aligned with personal health and happiness.

Cocaine hacks the brain. Meaning uses it.

I guess what I’m trying to say in a roundabout way is that a person can cultivate the ability to tell when they’re being fed short term dopamine hits, and I think it’s better if we try to develop the ability to say no to cocaine (via developing the reason no to) rather than trying to create a cocaine-free environment.

CarlsIII ,

Aren’t the people demanding that no instance ever defederate for any reason and that defederation shouldn’t be allowed the ones who have an inner dictator that needs to be tamed? I thought the entire point of things being decentralized is that individual instances can operate the way they want, including choosing which other instances to federate with. But for some reason, this freedom shouldn’t be allowed? Am I missing something here?

problematicconsumer OP ,
@problematicconsumer@lemmy.world avatar

If you cared enough to read my post (or comments under maybe) you would’ve seen that I have no problem with defederation in general. My issue is defederation of general instances with 10s of thousands of users for literally no reason but FUD. If you can prove that some other instance is harmful, you should definitely consider defederating

CarlsIII ,

I read your post, which equated calls for defederation to being a dictator.

problematicconsumer OP ,
@problematicconsumer@lemmy.world avatar

no instance ever defederate for any reason

did I say this?!

Also advocating for defederation (censorship) on an instance with 100K users is dictatorship. specially when you can’t prove that said instance is harmful.

CarlsIII ,

Dictatorship would be one single authority over all instances telling each instance what they can, cannot, and must do. Individual instances choosing who to federate or defederate with when people are free to choose whichever instance they want to be a part of (including being a part if multiple instances simultaneously with different accounts) is nothing at all like a dictatorship. It’s not even censorship like you claim. Nothing is stopping you from joining an instance that still federated with instances that another instance has defederate from. Or starting your own instance and making these decisions for yourself.

Why did I say “no instance defederate for any reason”? Because instances that have defederate have given reasons, and they naysayers like you are not only saying they shouldn’t be allowed to do that, but that doing so is “censorship” and “dictatorship”. I think you need a dictionary because you don’t seem to know what certain words mean.

problematicconsumer OP ,
@problematicconsumer@lemmy.world avatar

No one is stopping you to migrate from an authoritarian country either (most of the time) and yet they’re called authoritarian. Also, I’m not saying instances “shouldn’t be allowed to defederate”, I’m saying advocating for this on a general instance with 100K users is wrong. If this was a niche or small community with agreed upon and shared values (like beehaw for example) that would be understandable.

Saying things like “Oh, But You Can Run Your Instance” is dismissive of the issue, There’s literally no option to migrate accounts and expecting average users to deal with this mess is beyond me.

CarlsIII ,

Did you really just equate trying to leave an authoritarian country with signing up for a different federated instance? Every post you make just further confirms that you don’t know what the words “dictator” and “authoritarian.”

Also, I’m not saying instances “shouldn’t be allowed to defederate”, I’m saying advocating for this on a general instance with 100K users is wrong. If this was a niche or small community with agreed upon and shared values (like beehaw for example) that would be understandable.

First of all, this is probably some nuance you should have provided in your original post where you only say that calling for defederation makes you a “dictator” and in no way indicate that there are situation where you think defederation is appropriate. I don’t have time to read your entire posting history just to determine where you’re actually coming from. You could have probably included this nuance in your original post and avoided some of the backlash you are getting.

But second of all, how would you enforce what you are proposing? If larger instances were prevented somehow from defederating, wouldn’t that require some sort of “authority” making that decision for those instance? That doesn’t seem to align with your values based on what you’ve posted.

problematicconsumer OP ,
@problematicconsumer@lemmy.world avatar

Did you really just equate trying to leave an authoritarian country with signing up for a different federated instance?

Yes I am, you are suggesting I don’t know the meaning of these words, so I’ve provided an example of the exact same situation (importance doesn’t change meaning of words here, does it?)

If you censor me, you have censored me! The fact that you’re a government or admin of instance doesn’t change word’s meaning.

this is probably some nuance you should have provided in your original post where you only say that calling for defederation makes you a “dictator” and in no way indicate that there are situation where you think defederation is appropriate.

In hindsight, I should’ve but in response to most comments I’ve acknowledged that it’s fine in a lot of situations

But second of all, how would you enforce what you are proposing? If larger instances were prevented somehow from defederating, wouldn’t that require some sort of “authority” making that decision for those instance? That doesn’t seem to align with your values based on what you’ve posted.

May I ask what made you think I’m looking for enforcement here? I believe in human coordination and freedom of choice. If I join a general instance, I don’t expect admins to decide who I can interact with, that’s all!

CarlsIII , (edited )

Then what exactly is your proposed solution? Just more complaining and name-calling like you have been?

Yes I am, you are suggesting I don’t know the meaning of these words, so I’ve provided an example of the exact same situation (importance doesn’t change meaning of words here, does it?)

This is just fucking ridiculous. If you really think signing up for another instance actually requires the same amount of effort as leaving an authoritarian country (while doubling down to clarify that they are EXACTLY THE SAME) means that I am probably just a masochist for continuing to engage with you.

problematicconsumer OP ,
@problematicconsumer@lemmy.world avatar

Social Consensus! This should be part of the culture that unless some instance is factually harming us or content there is illegal (for jurisdiction of the hosted instance) we should not defederate.

CarlsIII ,

Well, ultimately, that’s just like, your opinion man. Besides that you think people are dictators when they propose defederation (sometimes)

problematicconsumer OP ,
@problematicconsumer@lemmy.world avatar

Well, it was always my opinion! No one’s opinion is a fact, necessarily. Let’s agree to disagree! glhf

CarlsIII ,

I was going to ask “don’t you want to try to bring people over to your point of view for the sake of building a social consensus) and then I remember that you called those people “dictators” so I guess not.

CarlsIII ,

I was going to ask “don’t you want to try to bring people over to your point of view for the sake of building a social consensus?” and then I remember that you called those people “dictators” so I guess not.

problematicconsumer OP ,
@problematicconsumer@lemmy.world avatar

At this point I’m getting bad vibes from you TBH! I’ve expressed my opinion and apparently some people find it compelling and some disagree, that’s fine!

CarlsIII ,

Great! I’ve had bad vibes about you since your original post!

CarlsIII ,

The feeling is mutual, as I’ve had bad vibes about you since your original post!

problematicconsumer OP ,
@problematicconsumer@lemmy.world avatar

But no one is forcing you to comment! You’ve expressed your opposition and I respect your opinion!

CarlsIII ,

And as someone who has family that had to escape the Soviet Union, I don’t respect your opinion that what they went through is “exactly the same” as making an account on a different instance!

problematicconsumer OP ,
@problematicconsumer@lemmy.world avatar

And as someone who lived most of my life under an authoritarian regime, I don’t respect your advocation for censorship. If you knew the effect of thinking you know better than anyone and can decide for them, you would never make such comments.

CarlsIII ,

And as someone who cares about the meanings of words, I don’t agree with you that defederarion is censorship, especially to the point of insisting it’s literally exactly the same as government censorship of its citizens!

problematicconsumer OP ,
@problematicconsumer@lemmy.world avatar

At this point you’re trolling. have fun I won’t respond

CarlsIII ,

The feeling is mutual, as I’ve had bad vibes about you since your original post!

PostmodernPythia ,

If an instance you’re in defederates, just start your own. Why complain about what people want to do in their instances? Just find another one.

Yes, that’s exactly how you sound.

problematicconsumer OP ,
@problematicconsumer@lemmy.world avatar

But I literally said the opposite!

Kichae ,

Do you get what’s the point of decentralized social media

Do you?

It certainly doesn't mean "everything from everywhere can reside on the server I pay for". Nor does it mean "we can't vote them off the island if they're negatively impacting us".

It means exactly the opposite, in fact. It means we get to say "no" at whatever level we choose, and that includes at the server level.

If you don't like the choices the admins on your server make, find a new one, or start your own. That is the promise of federation.

problematicconsumer OP ,
@problematicconsumer@lemmy.world avatar

Totally get your point. But I think this notion of I’m paying, so I will decide what you can do is not a good mindset. If you’ve started a general instance with tens of thousand of users, you have a responsibility, no one forced you to do this. And with no easy option to migrate accounts, yes this is authoritarian.

wasp ,

The foundation of free speech is that you cannot force someone to say something they do not want to. This is a lot more foundational than the “you can say what you want” aspect of free speech. You can’t force someone to agree with you, you can’t force someone to publish or say something in their name, you can’t force someone to host content on their website.

Similarly, you can’t force an owner of a Lemmy instance to host or say something they don’t want to. If an owner said “you know what, I don’t want to host this” or “I don’t want to federate with X” then you can disagree with them sure, but you can’t force them to say/do something they don’t want to.

Whether this is or isn’t authoritarian, the alternative is that someone can force a Lemmy owner to host things they don’t want in their server. Imagine if some really repugnant communities showed up on your instance and you couldn’t remove them. Now that really would be authoritarianism - it’s removing your freedom to choose what you say… Just because someone can say something, doesn’t mean you as an owner/individual have to listen to it, like it, agree with it, or host it.

The big free instances are running off of good will, they don’t owe you anything, they certainly don’t owe your view a voice unconditionally. If you don’t like it, especially with Lemmy, you can set up your own instance/club and say and not say what you like.

problematicconsumer OP ,
@problematicconsumer@lemmy.world avatar

Did anyone talk about forcing instance owners or any other person to do or say something they don’t want?!

Sorry but I think you have not even read the post. I’m talking about all these negativity towards other instances from average users in here. If and instance owner decides to defederate of course I might disagree but there’s not much I can do about it, specially if they can present reasons.

If anyone can prove that some other Instance is harmful it’s just natural that it should be defederated (in most cases)

Again. My issue is talking nonsense about oh that company is trying to destroy us whilst in reality they have hundreds of millions of users and are gaining more each second and we’re sitting here circle jerking about our nice little community.

I say we should be open to new experiments. I am not saying defederation is bad, I am not saying instance owners should be forced to do anything

CarlsIII ,

Aren’t the people demanding that no instance ever defederate for any reason and that defederation shouldn’t be allowed the ones who have an inner dictator that needs to be tamed? I thought the entire point of things being decentralized is that individual instances can operate the way they want, including choosing which other instances to federate with. But for some reason, this freedom shouldn’t be allowed? Am I missing something here?

AnonTwo ,

But what do you do when a known Dictator walks in?

Meta is going to establish itself, and go back to old habits once it's on top in the fediverse.

lynny ,
@lynny@lemmy.world avatar

Part of being free and accessible for everyone is allowing defederation.

Nougat ,

The general public does not understand federation. When Threads makes content that I have created via kbin.social visible on Threads, very many people are going to think that that content was created on Threads. And Meta then takes that content, aggregated with all the other non-Threads initiated fediverse content, and monetizes it. They are using "not their content" to enhance the desirability of their portal, and certainly placing ads in its vicinity. As with any instance, they can also curate that content to promote their chosen agenda, which is surely in part "increasing engagement."

We've seen how "increasing engagement" has been done by Meta and other companies already: ragebaiting and misinformation. While there is no way to completely prevent this, I want to avoid content that I have created from being used in that way. If there was a way for me to individually defederate from Threads, so that Threads could not see my content, I would turn that switch on in an instant. So far as I know, the only way for my content to be excluded from being viewed via Threads is for the instance my account is on to defederate. I'm not in any way asking for kbin.social to defed from Threads, just noting that that is currently the only functional way to accomplish the stated goal.

I do understand that there are already instances that have done that very thing, and I am certainly able to jump over and use one of those instead. I may do that at some point, but I am pleased with the interface at kbin.social, and developer of kbin's work. For the moment, I want to watch and see how things play out, becoming more informed before I make a decision about how I interact with the fediverse.

problematicconsumer OP ,
@problematicconsumer@lemmy.world avatar

Thanks, I get your point and have the same concern. But again, simply defederating will not solve this (in most cases). We need to make a case good enough, so people would willingly join these instances and stop using threads and such. I’m all for freedom, and yes freedom comes with a cost, there might be some bad actors here and there but thinking for rational actors and censoring is not a solution.

Nougat ,

... simply defederating will not solve this (in most cases).

Oh it would address that concern, but it's a very heavy-handed action. At present, I don't think there's enough reason for instances to defed from Threads, even when there are good reasons for me to want myself to be. That really plays into my not jumping over to some instance which has already taken that step; I would wonder about how such an instance was being shepherded in other ways.

Once there are proven and reliable mobile apps for lemmy and kbin and whatever, the barrier to entry for the general public will be much lower. But the general public also needs to know that there are ways to get to fediverse content outside of the Meta environment. You and I and those like us here now are still pretty early adopters.

problematicconsumer OP ,
@problematicconsumer@lemmy.world avatar

Exactly! We will always have the option to defederated if meta acts in a bad faith (which will happen, but let’s give them benefit of the doubt!).

AeroBlue ,

You realize that defederating prevents you from seeing their content but not the other way around right? Meta will see your content regardless. So many people are confused about this

PupBiru ,
@PupBiru@kbin.social avatar

people can choose not to interact with things that are bad for them, and bad for the group (the fediverse as a technology platform) sure

… just like people can choose to ignore misinformation
… or vote in their best interests

it’s definitely a fine line! but let’s not kid ourselves: people aren’t always rational actors, and refusing to admit that is dangerous

rowdyrockets , (edited )

deleted_by_author

    •
    hawkwind ,
    @hawkwind@lemmy.management avatar

    I mean someone from the “outside” might go to lemmy.world and see a page full of poop and beans and argue the same thing. Just saying.

    problematicconsumer OP ,
    @problematicconsumer@lemmy.world avatar

    I have no problem with people making educated decisions or ask for change based on facts. Fully agree about quality over quantity as well. My issue is FUD, having no idea what you’re talking about and still trying to convince everyone of that is harmful. When people working day and night on these protocols say there are no privacy concerns and no one can show you ads etc. and yet someone with literally zero understanding of the matter claims otherwise.

    hawkwind ,
    @hawkwind@lemmy.management avatar

    The ol’ “you know not of what you speak,” syndrome. Know-it-all’s with an axe to grind are the minority, but man, are they disruptive.

    RxBrad ,

    I dunno. I just stumbled on a movement to push instance owners to defederate any instance that doesn’t defederate Threads.

    This seems very much in the vein of dictatorialism / authoritarianism. It’s honestly just gross. This whole “you’re either with us or against us” tribalism is what has made social media so awful these last several years.

    hawkwind ,
    @hawkwind@lemmy.management avatar

    I think it’s more like the instances are countries, admins are governments, and defederation is embargo. Information and influence are the resources. Eventually, you’ll have instances that keep to themselves and others that throw their weight around regardless of any real world political alignment.

    Arn_Thor ,

    Not exactly. state actors and political party-sponsored troll farms have nurtured that tribalism and dialed it up for the past decade while the companies running the platforms stood by and raked in the cash because anger is engagement is money.

    CarlsIII ,

    Who is this this dictator/authority you refer to that’s forcing instances to defederate?

    RxBrad ,

    lemmy.world/post/1101330

    intensely_human ,

    Technically the concept you’re referring to is totalitarianism.

    Generally speaking that’s the view that there is one truth, one set of morally-correct beliefs, and that because What Is Good is known, it can be assumed those who don’t agree are Bad People.

    The basic seed of totalitarianism is this idea: “We know everything that needs to be known”

    An example of a totalitarian culture is Nazism: they thought that they’d worked out The Truth and that gave them the confidence that they were doing the right thing even as they did horrible things.

    Another view on totalitarian belief is this common argument against capital punishment: “Given there are errors in determining guilt, a system of killing people determined to be guilty, will in fact kill some innocent people.”

    That’s an anti-totalitarian argument. Basically it says “Given that we don’t have omniscience, let’s take it easy on the drastic action”

    The totalitarian view on capital punishment relies on this implicit argument: “Our courts have determined that guy is guilty, and our courts are always right, so the only ethical move is to kill him”. Then you might ask “why’s it okay to kill that guy but not other people?” and the totalitarian say “that’s different, because the first guy is guilty and the second guy is innocent”.

    It’s that certainty that defines totalitarianism.

    And the way it leads to dictatorships is this: If determining the correct move is a finite process that proceeds deterministically from observations and the already-determined set of moral rules, there’s no reason to ask multiple people’s opinion about this law. Therefore it will be law because we know it’s right.

    The non-totalitarian stance is open to new information, and doubts the ability of any one individual to have final knowledge of the right move, and so polls everyone on major decisions. ie democracy, or the distribution of power.

    problematicconsumer OP ,
    @problematicconsumer@lemmy.world avatar

    Great comment! Totalitarianism better describes this notion. My biggest problem is with these people thinking they know better, truth is we don’t know. All of these are social experiments and instead of taking preemptive drastic measures we can take a light handed approach and make decisions democratically whenever actually needed.

    cstine ,

    A lot of it is people wanting to avoid another Eternal September .

    If you have a community you’ve built, and like, a flood of people who don’t understand the culture and behavioral expectations swarming in can be viewed as, frankly, an unwanted invasion.

    I also think if this was some new startup (say, Bluesky) instead of Meta, there’d be a different tune, but that’s because a good portion of the people who run the communities and invest their time and money into building the community they want were burned by the aggressive enshittification that Meta is basically synonymous with at this point.

    TLDR: this has happened before, and it’s absolutely destroyed communities just due to the sheer volume of people who don’t understand how to behave swarming in and drowning out everyone who the community originally belonged to.

    hawkwind ,
    @hawkwind@lemmy.management avatar

    There has to be a middle ground. Applying to be in communities sounds good but what’s the point of a public forum that isn’t public. At some point if you continually defederate others, don’t you become the defederated one?

    cstine ,

    I think that defederation is the middle ground.

    One extreme is The Algorithm tells you who you’re going to talk to, and shoves junk at you nonstop, and the other is that you have to just accept and filter through whatever gets posted with no filtering at all.

    Defederation puts the control back in the hands of, if not the users, then at least the administrators and mods of a community; if you can control who can see your content, and what posts you see then and only then do you own the platform instead of being a faceless number that’s only there to be shoved into a dashboard to calculate your revenue value.

    hawkwind ,
    @hawkwind@lemmy.management avatar

    One could argue that there is actually less transparency from an admin than there is from a corporation. An admin has complete control over an instance and zero oversight if they want to be shitty without being caught. Ideally the “hive mind” would weed this out and defederation IS a tool to deal with it, but the control argument can go both ways. In all cases we start by trusting the controller is acting in our best interests and need ways of handling things when trust is broken. Defederation, as the sole tool, might be too heavy handed.

    problematicconsumer OP ,
    @problematicconsumer@lemmy.world avatar

    Now, this is a great case! I totally understand culture and overall vibe of communities, and I think if you have a very special niche or different community, it’s fine to defederate. Problem is general instances like lemmy.world

    cstine ,

    Yeah in that case I’d agree; if you’re on a giant public server that anyone can sign up to, I’m not sure there’s any particular value to be found in defederating anyone, other than places with uh, questionable content.

    NuMetalAlchemist ,

    Thing is, define “questionable content.” Then look at it the way a bad actor would. How can it be abused. To some, any LGBT+ content is “questionable.” To others, advancement of minorities. Who gets to draw the line? Who gets to decide what’s “questionable.”

    cstine ,

    I was attempting to say CSAM without saying CSAM.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • random
  • [email protected]
  • lifeLocal
  • goranko
  • All magazines
    •