Default instance blocks should largely replace defederation
Since what content users might want to see is quite unlikely to match which servers the admins tolerate, choosing instance on the Fediverse can be quite complicated, which is inconvenient and off-putting for new users.
For this reason, and simply that the Fediverse is stronger united, I believe defederation should ideally be reserved for illegal content and extreme cases. If Fediverse platforms would allow instances to simply block the rest for users by default, the user experience would be the same, unless they decide otherwise.
That wouldn’t work. I find it strange that some users keep thinking moderation or defederation is somehow about them or to keep them from accessing things. Talk about self-centered to an extreme degree 😅
Defederation is primarily used to keep bad stuff away from an instance and its (volunteer) moderators. Either because it is illegal or because it causes loads of moderation workload in the communities hosted by an instance. Neither of which would your proposal of soft-defederation solve even a single bit.
Well I said that illegal content should still be defederated. And I don’t think soft defederated content has to be moderated, since it’s only a number of users who choose to see it.
Just because few people can see it in the home instance doesn’t mean it isn’t there. And when a community is viewed from remote instances that have a different soft-defederation list all the bad stuff will be publicly visible (and indexed via search engines).
So for example a feminist community would be full of incel posts that are publicly visible almost everywhere.
Okay, that’s entirely fair. I was mostly thinking about the microblogging side of the Fediverse and didn’t quite consider the complexity that it would add to community moderation. I guess better moderation mechanisms could probably account for that, but Lemmy is as of now far away from that.
Edit: One might also solve that by not allowing soft defederated users to post in local communities.
Also, how is moderation not about the user? It’s the user who uses the platform; if they wouldn’t care about them they wouldn’t moderate at all, or run an instance in the first place for that matter.
You got that completely backwards.
You as a user are a guest of something akin to a private house party and are expected to behave as such. In turn the instance tries to be a welcoming party host by providing an enjoyable place for you to talk with other guests.
Moderation in that case is about removing guest that don’t know how to behave and choose to shit on the carpet. Defederation is about turning away known to be bad guests at the entrance so that the volunteers inside don’t have to clean shit off the carpets all the time.
But surely they won’t just let in guests for their own sake? They’re still doing it as a service for the guests, even if there are terms.
And I’d say that people from federated instances aren’t guests, they are more like people that can talk to your guests. Defederation is more like closing the window between the different parties so that they can’t talk to you because they disturb the peace and quiet. Then it seems entirely reasonable that your guests can still listen to them in a way that doesn’t affect the rest of your party.
Its a private party, not a service to anyone. The host does it because they enjoy having a party with their friends and other people that know how to behave.
And no, federated users are no different from local users. What matters is the server location of the community.
Maybe we’re taking this analogy too far. I just think that the promise of the Fediverse is to be able to be talk to anyone no matter where you choose to be and that we should try to keep this promise. Of course you should be able to keep people out if they disrupt, but it should remain a choice to see their content.
If you host your own instance you are free to invite who ever you choose to your own parties 🤷♂️
You sure are, but you still have ethics to think about, am I right?
Edit: It also seems unfair to lock your party in and not letting them interact with people elsewhere.
What ethics? Anyone is free to open an account elsewhere.
And its not about locking anyone in, but why should I as an instance host pay for the drinks of someone that takes them to another party with horrible people that constantly try to crash parties over at my place?
I don’t mind doing that with nice people’s parties as I want to go over to their parties sometimes as well.
But if they really want to hang out with these horrible party crashers, they can move over there or make their own party and invite them.