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)

  • density@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 years ago

    I think there is a role for “echo chambers”. Sometimes it’s good to have a common baseline of understanding assumed, because you can go into more depth in your perspective without having to rehash the basics.

    Like we are in an echo chamber here in that we are all kind of pro-fediverse. If this thread was full of people being like “well this sucks compared to instagram” etc, it would be less productive.