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)

  • melonplant@latte.isnot.coffee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Splitting hairs, but I think rather than implementing a partial defederation, I think it would be better to set user rights for a given federation instance. Some federations you might want to allow view only access, access to a certain “tier” of communities, etc. Make the rights customizable so its as granular as needed by the server.

  • Bizzle@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Beehaw feels like it’s ran by power tripping mods hiding behind toxic positivity and I’m not sad they defederated. I wouldn’t denigrate anybody for preferring it but I personally like a little more freedom.

  • Quit_this_instance@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I’d suggest that beehaw’s concerns could be met with a tool that lets you disable posting or voting from off-instance users unless they meet threshold criteria, whether it be account age or post history or manual approval. That would allow you to keep your content interaction controlled without the nuclear option of complete removal.

  • Pili@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    I like that idea. I had to create an account on 3 different instances to be able to interact with the communities I want because of instance blocks, it would be nice not having to juggle them all the time.

    • 00111010_01000100@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah people are not going to migrate over if they hear they can’t interact with everyone. “Be careful which instance you sign up with because other instances may have blacklisted you, but I can’t tell you which home instance to use because it might get overloaded.”

      • RomanRoy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Things will settle. There will be a lot of split communities at first, but in due time it will be more consolidated.

        So in more exclusive instances they will have their own communities on a matter if their users need it, but I expect the more general ones to be the go-to for the majority, even if in different instances.