Erik Uden 🚩Hey Fedi Admins, y'all federating with this? 
#FediPact
#FediPact
Aral Balkan@ErikUden Last I checked mastodon.social was.
Gytis Repečka@aral thanks to Dansup's and Nume McAaroon's tools it's very easy to check:
Zoidberg For President@ZoidbergForPresident yeah, absolutely... And boy do I know the instance for ya 
Spitfire
alex 
now on shonk.phite.ro
Mota@ErikUden oh shit I'm in one of the "federated" and didn't know it. Welp, I'll have to migrate soon...
Tom Ritchford
Lord Kelvin@hawyer @ErikUden @TomSwirly
I need to look into this.
I’ve 3 mastodon logins, & this one has been great for all-my-other-broad-interests as opposed to my ham radio account & my art appreciation account.
So I wanna keep this login, but also throw up a double bird-flip to Fark Muckerberg & the mElon-head.
✨buff dog himbo✨@kelvin0mql @hawyer @ErikUden @TomSwirly there's also an issue to do with Authorized_Fetch, which regards how other instances are able to look up and serve your profile content. So if you're on an instance that blocks Threads but doesn't have authorized fetch enabled, then your content can still be shared with Threads via federation with other servers who DO federated with Threads. & personal blocking of the instance also has similar privacy issues that it personal blocking doesn't solve.
@kelvin0mql @hawyer @ErikUden @TomSwirly so in addition to defederating with Threads, an instance also needs to enable authorized fetch to fully protect user data. Personal blocking can't do that.
@itsmeholland @kelvin0mql @hawyer @ErikUden I know about that, and I would prefer to have Authorized Fetch enabled, but my server isn't doing that yet.
Sometime in the new year I'll bug 'em.
Bruce Mirken
Hiker Geek 🌲💻🌲Thank you @trumpet. Being wary of Meta is the wise choice.
Markus Gaines@ErikUden I'm assuming it's Threads?
jonathankoren™@ErikUden i wouldnt follow, and I dont know anyone that would follow this loser, so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Mael Duin@maelduin13 @ErikUden do you think this person is representative of the supposed 141 million Thread users?
@jonathankoren @maelduin13 @ErikUden Mastodon has a HUGE amount of instances who as policy defederated from instances who knowingly host abusive content. That includes white supremacy, holocaust denial, and denial of known oppression. Yes, Threads knows about this content and refuses to do anything about it, just like on Facebook & Instagram. So yes, most of the large instances should by their own policy defederate. It's not about "being representative," it's about not opening users to abuse.
@jonathankoren @maelduin13 @ErikUden this is not unusual user behavior on threads. So in a sense, yes, this user is somewhat representative of what the Threads experience is going to be like. I've already seen posts from trans people - who USE Threads & WANTED to like Threads - who immediately experienced a dramatic increase in hate speech content from Threads. It's not in people's imagination, Threads KNOWS IT HOSTS HATE SPEECH AND DOESN'T CARE. Defederating is the only reasonable response.
#Guigui@ErikUden I know I ain't (preparing to move to another instance)
Alexey Skobkin@ErikUden
Are you suggesting to block large instance just because there are some morons or trolls?
Are you suggesting to block large instance just because there are some morons or trolls?
Завтра Будет Теплей@skobkin No, I'm suggesting to defederate from instances who not only allow but endorse users who disobey your rules, especially when it comes to discrimination, disinformation, etc.
If Threads was a Mastodon instance it would violate almost every instance's rules.
@ErikUden
How exactly are they endorsing users to break their rules?
How exactly are they endorsing users to break their rules?
@skobkin they endorse users who disobey our rules by pushing accounts like Moms for Liberty, Gays Against Groomers, or other alt-right and far right accounts / viewpoints. They allow such users on their platform even after reporting, which means they are tolerating what they are posting.
Again, if this was a Fedi instance it'd be defederated.
@ErikUden
I see.
But still if it's their instance then your rules don't apply there.
Not sure how they can endorse someone to your instance users though.
Also not sure why ban entire instance instead of just suspending or limiting bad actors too.
It lowers an amount of moderation work needed, but degrades the decentralized network.
For me personally instance user's ability to read anyone is more important.
@skobkin have you ever run a social network? You're telling me I should individually ban each Nazi on the 141 million user social network instead of just defederating from the Nazi network all together? Sorry not sorry, but that's just not possible. Every Admin has a limited amount of time. If your instance isn't moderating discrimination it has no place interacting with our users.
Those were the rules for every other Fediverse instance, and we do not discriminate nor favor Threads in any way. They are to be treated like every other instance.
For me personally an instance's user's ability to not be harassed but protected is more important.
@ErikUden
Yes, I did.
We have reports to deal with that. You can say that reports are reactive and not proactive. But then you're becoming biased to a LOT of users just because they've chosen their instance without thorough due diligence.
Not sure how this helps to protect users because bad actor can register on your instance or any other instance you're still federating with 🤷
In the end you'll still be reacting to that after the fact.
Meowcate@skobkin
It's simple. If bad actors register on an instance you're federating with, you report it to this instance's admins. If they don't see the problem, you deferedate with them because they're going to let problematic users and content reach your instance.
If bad actors register on your instance, contact your admins. If they don't care, change instance for the same reasons.
Federation is a tool, not a duty. If you think "just report, block them, deal with it", that's X.
@themeowcate @ErikUden
> Federation is a tool, not a duty
> If you think "just report, block them, deal with it", that's X.
Ok, let's suppose that I have my own instance which I don't right now.
The only thing I don't think is that I have right to decide what users CAN read. If I feel that the instance can be malicious, I can LIMIT them, so bad actors from there won't reach my users on their own. But if my users WANT to read someone there, I shouldn't be the one to tell them if they can or not 
@skobkin
Yes, you can, you absolutely can. And if your users are not happy with that, Mastodon has tools to change instance : they're not forced to stay here as they'd transfer their account.
Your instance, your moderation rules. Like if you own a forum. A Discord server. A Minecraft server. You can even have an closed Mastodon instance for your work or a small group of friends.
This is not like others social networks trying to connect the whole world together *whatever the cost*.
alastair87 (old account)@ErikUden @skobkin The argument I've seen is "but Threads have not done anything yet" (which even at that isn't true, but let's run with it).
The thing is we know what Meta has been up to for almost 20 years now from Facebook. So even if Threads hadn't yet been problematic on the fediverse, that's kind of akin to saying that a person who's burgled other people's houses has never burgled ours, so we should be happy to give them a copy of our keys and the alarm code.
They have form and an established pattern of behaviour and unlike some people they've never been given an opportunity to be reformed nor have they demonstrate change on their own, not to mention that *corporations aren't people* so this simile is inherently limited anyway.
The thing is we know what Meta has been up to for almost 20 years now from Facebook. So even if Threads hadn't yet been problematic on the fediverse, that's kind of akin to saying that a person who's burgled other people's houses has never burgled ours, so we should be happy to give them a copy of our keys and the alarm code.
They have form and an established pattern of behaviour and unlike some people they've never been given an opportunity to be reformed nor have they demonstrate change on their own, not to mention that *corporations aren't people* so this simile is inherently limited anyway.
Twobiscuits🚴♂️ 
@ErikUden @skobkin @themeowcate
Not that I'm some kind of fedi guru, but I've been saying for months that federating with #threads will initiate the 'mega-instance scenario' whereby one or more huge servers destroys the entire MO of the #fediverse
Prob the only solution is a limit on server size
The fediverse only works when it is a mass of small / medium sized servers that can block each other at will
That's the whole f***ing point
Mael Duin (@[email protected])
People advocating for #federation with #threads need to be aware that they're advocating for a complete change in the MO of the #fediverse The current MO is that blocking is the responsibility of a server, and this is how the fediverse is protected against #fascism and #disinformation The new threads MO will be that blocking is the responsibility of the individual. Essentially 'you may not want to see disinformation but others have the right to' Which is basically the philosophy of #Musk
@maelduin13
We already have this problem with mastodon.social. When some instances wanted to limit/ban .social because it had problematic content/users and the others instances admins couldn't get the .social admins to moderate their instance, some people went crazy "you can't block them, they're the biggest instance, you would kill the Fediverse !".
@themeowcate @ErikUden @skobkin @erosalie @trumpet
Yes I think any server over a certain size is a risk - mastodon.social included
antipode77@maelduin13 @ErikUden @skobkin @themeowcate @erosalie @trumpet
I guess you are right.
Take a leaf out of the book of Nature.
The cells in your body can't become arbitrarily big.
Federated servers should not become arbitrarily big. If they get too big, they should split into two like cell division.
By the way, that also applies to constructs like companies!
Companies are too big when they are able to subdue the society, that they live off.
blaine@maelduin13 @ErikUden @skobkin @themeowcate @erosalie @trumpet I'm probably wading in with not enough social context, so apologies, but the point of federation for me was never to enable server-level blocks. In a sentence, it was to enable, at scale, new ways of operating that don't depend on monopolistic control.
Moderation itself could be federated (and imho should be), making it possible for instance operators to meaningfully delegate moderation to trusted organization(s).
@blaine @ErikUden @skobkin @themeowcate @erosalie @trumpet
From when I first heard of Mastodon circa 2016 it was always about the power to block other instances - unless I'm misremembering
I hear what your saying though - open standards permit innovation and evolving protocols
With a Moderation as a Service model don't we just risk another centralized control scenario - albeit distributed across a few entities?
@maelduin13 @ErikUden @skobkin @themeowcate @erosalie @trumpet Mastodon's a latecomer to the game. 😅 I honestly thought we'd missed our chance back in ~2009, but it's still so very early — lots can and will change yet. ❤️
I don't think we'll end up in a centralized control situation, because instance admins (and users & their communities!) will still have choice and control. It's obviously a risk, but the important thing is to build alternatives with intention.
@maelduin13 @ErikUden @skobkin @themeowcate @erosalie @trumpet probably important to say that I do believe (and hope!) that "non-globally-federating communities" will be an important part of the fediverse. My hope is that the scope and complexity of the fediverse becomes synonymous with the web & the internet so that everyone can benefit, not just people who are comfortable in alt spaces.
@blaine @ErikUden @skobkin @themeowcate @erosalie @trumpet
I do like the idea of MaaS to help out overburdened server admins - particularly if it's bespoke
But I don't think this addresses the risk of a mega instance run by a Musk or Zuckerberg effectively becoming the default and allowing e.g. Kremlin propaganda to permeate the fediverse
It seems to me like it's a matter of people wanting AP to become the dominant protocol, whatever the cost
@maelduin13 @ErikUden @skobkin @themeowcate @erosalie @trumpet I'd put it this way: right now, Musk & Zuck *are* the default, and have no incentive to change. Many people would like alternatives, but have a higher affinity to their community (on Meta/X) than they do protocol politics. I don't think anything gets better without a federated social model as default. Nb, I think it's a necessary but not nearly sufficient condition. 😅
@maelduin13 @ErikUden @skobkin @themeowcate @erosalie @trumpet (https://mastodon.social/@blaine/109327688462036016 for more context; I used to think that one person or organization could make or break this "stuff", not as a matter of morality or achievement, but happenstance. I now realize that this work *is* humanity. It literally takes and will continue to take a cast of billions; being closed to scale is important sometimes, but at this moment/context I think it means letting the usurers win 😢)
@blaine @ErikUden @skobkin @themeowcate @erosalie @trumpet
I think we are very much at the 'Sophie's choice' stage
I'm torn when I suggest a limit on server size as I'm aware that it could permanently scupper the chances of AP being the dominant protocol
But if, in a year or two's time, the fediverse is as big as twitter once was and has even a quarter the amount of Kremlin disinfo then it will have failed
Time will tell 😀!
Michael Bauser@maelduin13 @ErikUden @skobkin @themeowcate @erosalie @trumpet If that's the "whole fucking point," why isn't that point enforced at a protocol level (other than the fact that it can't realistically be enforced at a protocol level)?
The notion that the highest ideal of a federated network is 'we can't allow anyone to be too successful' sounds like a lowbrow satire of Communism. I can't even picture how the #fediverse utopians think that would work!
> But still if it's their instance then your rules don't apply there.
Exactly, which is why Federating with a massive organization that allows hatespeech is bad.
There are 1500 Facebook users for every Mastodon user. We will be overwhelmed by it!
> For me personally instance user's ability to read anyone is more important.
Explain how not Federating with Threads prevents people who want to from going to Threads and read anyone?
@TomSwirly @ErikUden
> Explain how not Federating with Threads prevents people who want to from going to Threads and read anyone?
Why should I explain that if that implies the fact that I'm leaving them no choice in such case?
Why should they leave? Why should I give them a binary choice 'You're with us or you against us'? Why should they choose between local users and threads users? Why should they watch Facebook ads? Why should they be a subject for Facebook algorithms in their feed?
I can't explain that to myself.
People have all the choice in the world.
People don't have to "leave" Mastodon in order to see some other feed: web browsers have multiple pages.
I can go to threads.net and see a bunch of content without an account.
Complaining that you can't see Threads on Mastodon is like complaining you can't see Netflix on YouTube.
There are 1500 FB users for ever Mastodon user. Even if only 1% ever use threads, that's 15 of them for every one of us - 15x the work for moderators.
@TomSwirly @ErikUden
> I can go to threads.net and see a bunch of content without an account.
Uhh-huh. It would be so convenient. Exactly the same experience like home feed.
> Complaining that you can't see Threads on Mastodon is like complaining you can't see Netflix on YouTube.
This is where it becomes funny. Federation and interoperability is exactly the thing to solve that problem. This is the one of key points that distinguishes Mastodon and other federated networks from Facebook and YouTube.
But as always people are ruining it 🤷♂️
So yes, if I WAS able to see Netflix on YouTube because they were created to operate this way and then someone said that now I can't, I'll complain.
> It would be convenient.
The effort involved in opening a second page is tiny, so this is not in fact any sort of consideration.
> This is where it becomes funny.
It would be nice to have one interaction with you where you showed some respect.
The advantage of Federation is not that you should be required to carry content you don't want to.
My instance doesn't federate with a lot of other instances: explicitly Fascist or white-power instances, for example.
yuki - queen of the snow@yukijoou @skobkin that too! As well as not moderating alt-right, fascist, or openly Nazi accounts.
Sorry not sorry, we ban individual users if admins aren't capable of enforcing their rules fast or well enough, but we defederate if admins willingly allow users that discriminate and break our rules.
I don't care if it's a 10 user or 141.000.000 user network. Allow fascists, you won't be part of our internet.
@skobkin @ErikUden yes, many large instances have policies which state explicitly that they defederate from instances who knowingly host hate speech & do nothing about it. Threads is one such instance, so yes, it's absurd how many instances who have such rules are making an exception for Threads. Including mastodon.social, which includes harassment, hate speech, & misinformation in its reasons for limiting many other instances. Why should Threads be an exception? Because it's "large"? Who cares?