this post was submitted on 03 Mar 2025
9 points (68.0% liked)

The Agora

1650 readers
43 users here now

In the spirit of the Ancient Greek Agora, we invite you to join our vibrant community - a contemporary meeting place for the exchange of ideas, inspired by the practices of old. Just as the Agora served as the heart of public life in Ancient Athens, our platform is designed to be the epicenter of meaningful discussion and thought-provoking dialogue.

Here, you are encouraged to speak your mind, share your insights, and engage in stimulating discussions. This is your opportunity to shape and influence our collective journey, just like the free citizens of Athens who gathered at the Agora to make significant decisions that impacted their society.

You're not alone in your quest for knowledge and understanding. In this community, you'll find support from like-minded individuals who, like you, are eager to explore new perspectives, challenge their preconceptions, and grow intellectually.

Remember, every voice matters and your contribution can make a difference. We believe that through open dialogue, mutual respect, and a shared commitment to discovery, we can foster a community that embodies the democratic spirit of the Agora in our modern world.

Community guidelines
New posts should begin with one of the following:

Only moderators may create a [Vote] post.

Voting History & Results

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

The Issue

Currently, it seems to be that the majority of instance defederations happen silently on SJW: As of writing this, SJW currently blocks federation with 86 instances ^[1]^, yet, from what I can tell ^[2]^, there has not been 86 announcements. For clarity, this is not intended to be construed as an accusation, pointed at the SJW admins, that this is some sort of intentional obfuscation; however, for the sake of transparency and understanding, I think it would be a good practice to open these practices up to the rest of the instance.

Proposal

I propose that whenever an instance is to be defederated, an open (ie unlocked) post should be published by the SJW admins (eg it could be published to [email protected]) detailing the name of the instance that is to be defederated, the rationale for why it is to be defederated (including evidence to support the rationale), and what steps would need to be taken by the respective instance's admins in order for that instance to be re-federated.

Benefits

  • I think it would provide users with an opportunity to better understand the rationale and alignment SJW's admins.
  • I think it helps keep the administrators (both locally and federated) publicly accountable.
  • Having an open announcement for defederation could invite discussion on the topic. I think this discussion could offer enlightening insight.
  • It will create a sort of searchable database for users to reference if they wish to know why a given instance is defederated.
  • I think it could potentially reduce the administrative burden on the admins in that it serves as a sort of FAQ in place of users repetitively asking the admins why an instance was defederated.
  • I think that It may provide a more targeted opportunity for the admins of the defederated instance to directly, and publicly, engage with the issue.

Drawbacks

  • If there ends up being a large volume of defederations, this practice may end up becoming a sizeable burden for the SJW admins. One note on this is that it may be possible for some defederations to be grouped together, but this would have to be done carefully so as to not become obfuscative.

Additional Context

I think a potential counterargument could be: "If a user wishes to know more about why an instance is defederated, then they should just make a post asking about it, or they should dm the admins."; however, I think this may actually increase the workload on the admins if the question is posed frequently enough, furthermore, I fear that this sort of active approach on the part of the inquirer could have a sort of chilling effect: the topic of "instance defederation" is often a contentious one, and some may be hesitant to actively open themselves up to that sort of potential conflict in order to seek the desired information. This proposal would offer sanctuary for the inquisitive lurker.

References

  1. Type: Website. Publisher: sh.itjust.works. Accessed: 2025-03-03T05:15Z. URI: https://sh.itjust.works/instances.
    • See the "Blocked Instances" tab.
  2. I simply searched for posts with keywords like "defederate" and "block" in [email protected].
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] kersploosh 9 points 10 hours ago (3 children)

Transparency is good. But I'm not sure announcing or voting on each defederation is necessary.

In cases where there is concern about another instance's culture or general user behavior then an announcement or even a vote may be appropriate. We have done this in the past for exploding-heads (link) and threads (link).

However, most of the instances on our block list either (a.) allow pedo/loli/CSAM type content, or (b.) are unmoderated/abandoned instances where spammers set up shop. In those cases we just hit the block button and move on with our day. We have sometimes made announcements (link), but not consistently. In the case of a CSAM-friendly instance I would not want to give them free advertising by making a public announcement.

If you are ever curious why a particular instance was defederated, look at our Fediseer profile below. We try to keep the Censures list up to date with our instance block list, and note the rationale for blocking each instance. And if you see something odd in that list please let us know. At least once an instance was unblocked after a user brought it to our attention (link).

https://gui.fediseer.com/instances/detail/sh.itjust.works

[–] Kalcifer 2 points 9 hours ago (2 children)

[…] I'm not sure […] voting on each defederation is necessary. […]

My proposal does not include voting on cases of defederation.

[–] kersploosh 1 points 28 minutes ago

Yes, sorry. My reply wandered off track a bit. In my defense, it was late and I should have been sleeping instead of spending time on Lemmy.

In short, all I meant to say is that I generally agree with your proposal, and we do have a history of announcing and discussing defederations in advance in some cases, but I wouldn't make it a blanket rule.

Of course that's purely my personal opinion. If the rest of the community feels differently (including the other admins) then I'm all ears.

[–] AwesomeLowlander 1 points 8 hours ago

Does the link not contain the information you're looking for, then?