This rings true, especially this part:

"The truly toxic idea, though, is that Mastodon instances should not only refuse to federate with Threads, but they should refuse to federate with other servers that do federate with Threads. In other words, users should be punished for decisions they have no control over and may not even be aware of, made by the administrators of servers they don’t belong to. I am dead serious when I call this toxic."

https://tracks.ranea.org/post/722507935765397504/youre-so-vain-you-probably-think-this-app-is

@tchambers

That does not sound toxic to me at all. That simply sounds like admins behaving as admins are. If an admin does not have your confidence for whatever reason, the natural response is to leave. "Just Leave" shouldn't be a foreign concept on mastodon, especially given the large component of twitter refugees.

Imagine a pub. The owner has the right to refuse service for any reason. Including but not limited to: doesn't like your clothes. If the owner is a dick, just don't patronise.

@tchambers
Interesting to see does common sense prevail or will the #Fediverse be broken up into silos that don't communicate with each other just like corporate social media (oh the irony).

#ActivityPub #Federation

@tchambers @chipotle I can't see this being done by any instances except the ones that already have toxic defederation behaviors (like blocking a whole instance because one of the admins made a personal post that was lacking on some leftist purity test on a matter that had nothing to do with instance operation or moderation).

@tchambers Seems to me to be more of a consequence than toxic. For example, if some instance refuses to federate with Trump Social, is it really that big a leap to not federate with an instance that federates with Trump Social? In fact, I thought that was happening already.

@tchambers @chipotle

One of the reasons some are considering doing this is that they do not want their users content "relayed" onto #Threads.

If an instance fully federates with Threads (we still don't know any specifics of "federation with Threads", but hypothetically...), and they do not enable auth_fetch, then it seems like posts that the instance users boost will be transmitted to Threads.

Some do not want any of their content on Threads where it might be exploited by #Meta.

@dalias @tchambers @chipotle there are instances and there are instances. Some of them are tightly knit communities that enjoy as much right to federate and defederate whosoever they please to protect their community irrespective of third party views. Federation is a privilege, not a right. Anyone and everyone has the right to federate exactly as they please, and the use of an open standard allows those that disagree to jump ship. Please respect all decisions, even the ones you disagree with.

@mastodonmigration@mastodon.online @tchambers@indieweb.social @chipotle@micro.coyotetracks.org
Auth fetch is only necessary on the instance who wants to defederate from meta.

There isn't a single good justification for two layers of defederation. It's crazy to think that Threads is treated as something worse than .cloud, mstd.jp, or even poa.st and bea.st.

@jaz @tchambers @chipotle No, I'm not going to respect instance admins who rip apart people's social graphs in ways the people who signed up didn't expect. I'm going to call them assholes. If you don't like that, too bad. I don't owe respect to their authority.

@matthieu_xyz @tchambers Got it. You are saying that if the instance blocks Meta and turns auth_fetch on, then there users' content will not be transmitted to #Meta. Right?

@mastodonmigration That’s understandable, yet “my posts must never end up on Server Foo” isn’t achievable unless there is literally no possible path between your server and Foo, is it?

@chipotle It would be good to get these things well defined, so people know what will happen if they take specific actions.

@dalias @tchambers @chipotle I'd be curious to know who has ripped apart social graphs without consulting with their community, is this something you're aware of?

@jaz @dalias @tchambers @chipotle are you saying that deferderation inherently (automatic messaging?) of informs all users of what is happening? If not so, we're talking about the hypothetical behaviour of admins in general, and the easier thing to do is to not inform users

@mastodonmigration @tchambers @chipotle wait, shouldn't it be users that have a say what happens to their content? Since when are admins the ones entitled to take this decision? Maybe there are some consulting mechanisms I'm missing, but I'd love to be enlightened about the workings of some parts of the fediverse I haven't experienced yet

@jaz @dalias @tchambers @chipotle this isn't exactly true though because they tend to be very vocal and trying to force others to follow their rules. If they shut up about it and just manage their servers as they please that would be fine

@jens @tchambers @chipotle refusing to talk to any user on the Facebook network is also a privileged stance.

Blanket defederators are effectively saying they’re only interested in talking to people with the time and resources to participate in a cutting edge niche community which a much higher bar to entry than mainstream social networks.

I don’t wanna block my grandpa’s calls.

https://writing.exchange/@erlend/110623695361380273

@tchambers @chipotle Instead of Embrace, Extend, Extinguish, this is Extinguish before the Embrace

@jaz I’ve actually experienced this earlier in my Mastodon life on another account, as an instance with a dozen accounts I was following defederated from the instance I was on (and apparently didn’t even tell the “offending” admins what they’d done wrong). There was no notification to me; I just had to notice “hey, I haven’t seen posts from these people in a while”.

@mastodonmigration @tchambers @chipotle sounds like an issue with the admin not turning on auth_fetch.

But ignoring that, I just want to raise your attention to the madness of trying to wall off content that you are putting as Public Content online. There’s no amount of defederation that will keep a screenshot of a public toot out of any network, Meta or not. I don’t understand the idea of trying to control public data you are putting out.

@chipotle it's a thorny issue for sure. Admins that don't announce defederations can be thought of by some as not being transparent, those that do make announcements might be seen as aggressive or coercive. As with all social media networks we are all at the mercy of the relevant admin team, be it Twitter or a ten person server. Thankfully, thanks to an open standard, we can vote with our feet. I believe there are conversations underway to improve transparency in this area.

@tchambers @chipotle Toxicity is when you call people toxic for not wanting to talk to you. Especially when their reasons for not wanting to talk to you is that you talk to bigots.

@anttipeltola @tchambers the Fediverse is already broken into several silos. For example there's a whole network of nazi instances out there which I never see

@SallyStrange @anttipeltola Big diff between defeerating gab or poast - versus splitting major chuncks of well managed sizes that currently federate fine.

@tchambers thank you for subscribing to my block list with this garbage level take 🙇

@tchambers @anttipeltola I suppose. It's not "inherently toxic" either way. People calling it that need to check themselves. Why are you entitled to access other people?

@SallyStrange @tchambers @chipotle I'm not really afraid of bigots, so I'll engage with them. But I always want them to be afraid of me. So, I'll wear a MAGA hat because I'm ironically trying to make fun of it, not because I believe in it. That's what Mel Brooks made a career on, and "The Producers" was a level of comic genius that made fun of Nazis and spawned a movie, then a musical, then a movie from the musical. And now, I need to go warm up the ol' Jewish Space Laser and see if I can hit Tommy Tuberville between the eyes...

@SallyStrange @anttipeltola
What i see @chipotle saying is:

It takes away the ability of OTHER users to connect to friends or severed servers, or cuts social connections with people already in place between those servers - "punished for decisions they have no control over and may not even be aware of, made by the administrators of servers they don’t belong to."

It does kill off those social connections with no recourse. Boom.

@tchambers @anttipeltola @chipotle So the only "toxicity" here is admins breaking connections with no warning. Which usually they don't do. And it's not quite true to say there's no recourse. Moving instances is a PITA but it's not nothing.

@toxtethogrady @tchambers @chipotle I wish you wouldn't wear the MAGA hat "ironically." Personally I'm not going to get close enough to you to discern whether you're being "ironic" in your support for fascism. I'm just going to assume you're out to get me, same as I would with my former co-worker's "nostalgic" wearing of his grandfather's Nazi memorabilia

@SallyStrange @tchambers @chipotle They've been out to get me for a while, but I always manage to get them instead....

@SallyStrange @anttipeltola @chipotle

Cold comfort to someone who had a social home they loved, with a local feed that they found valuable, and admins they trusted to have to jump ship, with no recourse. Or who gets feed up with all fo that and just quits the Fedi.

@tchambers @anttipeltola @chipotle And "maintaining friendships without having to switch instances" will be cold comfort to people driven off Fedi because suddenly their mods are unable to cope with swarms of doxxers, harassers, and fascists.

Again: you're not describing toxicity.

@toxtethogrady @tchambers @chipotle OK

@tchambers @SallyStrange @anttipeltola @chipotle Every bit of this can also be said of people who choose to avoid Threads because of the personal harm Facebook has caused many as well as its systemic harm to millions. When their instance decides to welcome Threads, these people also lose access to a social home they loved with admins they trusted and have to jump ship with no recourse. The major difference is that the someones I describe here are very likely the more vulnerable someones.

@SallyStrange @tchambers @chipotle
Problem is that some instance admins are looking into punishing instances that federate to #Threads by defederating from them. Thats toxic. Thats Soviet tankie bullshit.

@anttipeltola @tchambers @chipotle ma'am this is rank nonsense. Defederation is not punishment. Someone not talking to you is not remotely similar to Soviets sending people to the gulag.

@anttipeltola @SallyStrange @tchambers defederation is simply about protecting the users of an instance. If the users do not want said protection they may move to an instance that better aligns with them.

@grayface_ghost @anttipeltola @SallyStrange @tchambers I feel like these people have never, like, actually posted anything mildly contentious to Facebook.

Zucc has cucked my account for saying “sometimes men suck” (to a friend upset about her ex-bf), calling someone a “silly goose”, and also because I called someone a “racist dumbass”.

Now apply this logic to the Fediverse. You do not know how Zucc treats users that do not conform.

@paprikapink @tchambers @anttipeltola @chipotle well said.

@grayface_ghost @tchambers @SallyStrange @anttipeltola @chipotle Since this is being boosted in to my feed -- there is never a situation where someone needs to stand up for bigots, white supremacists, fascists, etc. Zuck trying to normalize them doesn't change that. In fact, that should be a huge red lag in of itself. If Zuck won't clean his house, we'll clean it for him. That includes instances full of people crying that the abusers aren't allowed to abuse.

@erlend @jens @tchambers @chipotle damn you thought you ate with the “I don’t want wanna block my peepaw” line didn’t you?

@chipotle @anttipeltola@mastodon.world @tchambers Couple of false statements here.

1. Defederation is not retaliation. It's protection. Framing it as punishment is your emotional response, nothing more. I understand that you feel bad about possibly losing connections you valued, but then, if you see the cutoff as punishment rather than self-protection then how strong ARE those connections really? Clearly you have no insight into the mindset of those wary of Facebook.

2. Of course there will be "collateral damage" in the form of connections lost. It's just that the potential damage of giving millions of bigots access to small communities of marginalized people outweighs it.

@tchambers @chipotle
Users can move to another server, or have other accounts. The idea that users are being punished is just silly.

@SallyStrange @anttipeltola @chipotle

On that second point, I agree. But as mods we have all the tools we need to protect against that now, and without nuclear first strikes.

https://www.timothychambers.net/2023/06/23/project-and-the.html

@scrottie @grayface_ghost @tchambers @SallyStrange @chipotle
Thanks for your viewpoint. My final post on this thread. There are no correct answers here.

Some of us want a larger Fediverse and some of us want maximally protect their communities and even by excluding those that are willing to federate with Threads.

We'll see if its a storm in a teacup or something larger in the coming weeks. Thanks for everyone who contributed here since all viewpoints have been valuable.

@anttipeltola @scrottie @grayface_ghost @SallyStrange @chipotle

Thank you! 🙏

@tchambers @anttipeltola@mastodon.world @chipotle I would trust you more if you stopped describing preemptive federation as a "nuclear first strike." Or as "punishment." Or as "retaliation."

WHY are you ENTITLED to access other people??

@tchambers @SallyStrange @anttipeltola @chipotle

I see the argument that people already "deal with exactly this from poorly moderated servers EVERY. SINGLE. DAY.

And if we find ANY server not responsive THEN we block"

But the damage that 100 million can do before blocked is not comparable to existing moderation of smaller servers.

@tchambers @chipotle If a user doesn't like a moderation policy, such as the decision to either join up with Meta's new Nazi instance or conversely, to defederate from instances that do so, they should go to an instance that matches their values more closely.

Fundamentally, I don't think it's toxic at all to want nothing to do with Facebook or instances that want to join up with Facebook. We already know what that company is about, and the whole idea that we all need to hang out in one vast poorly moderated social media ecosystem has been shown to be flawed.

@grayface_ghost @anttipeltola @scrottie @SallyStrange @chipotle

Not in this thread, but check this out and see what you think: (esp the second argument)

https://www.timothychambers.net/2023/06/23/project-and-the.html

@tchambers @grayface_ghost @anttipeltola @SallyStrange @chipotle wtf I clicked the link and it's bored apes?

@SallyStrange There are marginalized communities using Facebook and IG and, now, Threads, which is kind of what I’m trying to get at. I’m aware there are lots of people who take the position that because Facebook is awful and at a corporate level tolerates awful people, anyone who has an account on Facebook is awful. I am not sure they really understand how many queer and marginalized people are on giant services like that, and how few of them are going to go get an account on Mastodon because we’re yelling at them about how awful they are. The collateral damage potential seems to me to be pretty high, it will include marginalized people, and I think it could seriously break the Fediverse, which is kind of the core of my argument. I guess you think it’s not as serious as I’m making it out to be; I think it’s more serious than “eh, you might have to refollow a few people”.

At any rate, thank you for not really yelling yourself, even if you disagree with me. I knew I was probably going to kick a hornet’s nest if this went viral, and it kind of did, and I’m sorry people who, to be overly diplomatic about it, I don’t think I want to have speaking for me have engaged with you over this.

@SallyStrange @chipotle

Defederation as a server admin is a nuclear option as it should only be used as a last resort after all other means of moderation are tried and failed. Because it destroyed other users - often times MANY - social graphs without their consent.

@tchambers @chipotle We already know that Facebook/Meta federation has failed. So...

@SallyStrange @chipotle

It hasn't occurred yet. Likely months away - if it does. Waiting and seeing.

@chipotle Having moved instances a few times, I really do not see it as a gigantic deal. Some folks might, OK, fine. It's still pretty objectively less of a big deal than having Libs of Tik Tok trawling our feeds.

And yeah I know there are marginalized people on FB. It's pretty irrelevant to this argument though. Just because YOU are getting yelled at for being insensitive to the concerns of marginalized people on here doesn't mean those folks are going to get the same treatment.

@tchambers @chipotle even more reason for you to drop the emotionally manipulative and inaccurate framing of "retaliation," "punishment," and "nuclear strike."

@Cryptika @chipotle You do see that he was saying "double defederation" not just defed was toxic, right?

@grayface_ghost @anttipeltola @scrottie @SallyStrange @chipotle

Thanks for checking it out. What feels wrong or missing, or what is your objection to the second argument?

I hear you saying "there is too many of them to moderate" - Is that the main objection?

@tchambers @chipotle Yeah I support defederating from instances that are connected to Threads, build a moat around it. Was that not clear to you?

@grayface_ghost @tchambers @anttipeltola @SallyStrange @chipotle If this weren't a blatant embrace-extend-extinguish play, or a poisining the well play, there would be some discussion there. The 100 million users is almost entirely fake; anyone with an Instagram account joining there gets stub accounts for their whole social graph copied over. But there's another fundamental error with that...

@tchambers @chipotle The "activitypub is open and should be open" take keeps coming up, but:

ActivityPub is an open protocol, which means it's a tool for lots of people to use to build the communities and networks they want to build.

That doesn't mean that any software installation supporting the protocol is obliged to federate with any other software installation. Not even a little or in spirit.

@scrottie @grayface_ghost @anttipeltola @SallyStrange @chipotle

No one is auto-joined. You have to affirmatively choose to join Threads to get in. It asks if you want to follow your IG users IF they join. But if they don't you don't follow them and they don't count for that number.

@lmorchard @tchambers @chipotle The Fediverse is not a community. It is a loose network of small communities, each of which is, should be, and must be free to decide who to admit or reject, and which communities to federate, on whatever basis that small community likes. That's why federation works.

@grayface_ghost @tchambers @anttipeltola @SallyStrange @chipotle power either flows from above, or below. Either. We *pick*. Threads despite hype and lies is brand new. Why would we suddenly decide that it has power, and make that a self-fullfilling prophecy, given everything we know at this point about corporate social networks? Especially given that imo if it isn't EEE, it's poisoning the well and the goal is to make fedi look bad by electing themselves spokesperson then being trash...

@grayface_ghost @tchambers @anttipeltola @SallyStrange @chipotle which would be far from the first time a company made a play in to a market they weren't serious about just to block exits. Monopolists don't play nice.

@tchambers @SallyStrange @chipotle
Jumping in with another perspective...

Preemptively defederating a server wouldn't destroy connections that don't exist yet. Given history, I think the probability of competent moderation by Meta is essentially zero.

But to give fediverse denizens the ability to choose what works for them, and not have to suddenly migrate, I think it's most important for each server admin to decide now, and publicize now, whether they will federate with Threads.

@grayface_ghost @anttipeltola @scrottie @SallyStrange @chipotle

OK to that objection I say that we don't have to worry about anything but protecting OUR users. To use a clear example:

I have 11K users at my server and 2 mods now. I get 2-4 reports per day we handle.

When Threads joins I *MIGHT* have 15,000 users and will have 5 mods. that is plenty to protect 15,000 users.
And we can do what we do now. it works now, it will scale.

@tchambers @grayface_ghost @anttipeltola @SallyStrange @chipotle ok mr we need the ten million fake users who just joined yet another corporate network and follow ADL recognized hate groups so we can save them from Facebook. You promised me you'd log off. You understand the corporate view extremely well but have no capacity for learning the non-corporate view except to minimize it, so at the very least, you're a lobbyist. I think both sides, including those calling you a lobbyist, have merit.

@tchambers

Good write-up. Interested to see how it all shakes out. Either way, the #Fediverse will evolve even if it means more silos for added protection.

@grayface_ghost @anttipeltola @scrottie @SallyStrange @chipotle

@geobeck @SallyStrange @chipotle

Agree that it's important for new users to know what they are signing up for in terms of Threads federation.

But that won't stop the harms and severing of social graph from those who are already on such servers if folks do 2 degrees of defederation.

@tchambers @geobeck @chipotle Thus, the best way to avoid the harm you're concerned about is for ALL servers to agree not to federate with Facebook.

@tchambers @SallyStrange @chipotle
That I agree with. If a server is planning to double-defederate, it's especially important for users to have as much notice as possible to plan potential migration.

And it's more important than ever for admins to talk to each other about how they plan to deal with Meta, and their possible reactions if things go sideways.

@grayface_ghost @anttipeltola @scrottie @SallyStrange @chipotle

We can handle any of what you just mentioned and for instance scaling and literally 200 a day would easily tenable. And we would STILL be protecting our own.

If we got more we would scale mod team more.

if threads was unresponsive & functionally unmoderated like any server we would silence or block them depending. Just like any other server...but our folks would be protected either way.

@grayface_ghost @anttipeltola @scrottie @SallyStrange @chipotle

You do get that the argument was not that, right, but only those that did "two degrees of defederation," right?

My argument here is specifically that I respect those that choose to defend Meta but I think it is a worse strategy to protect our own: https://www.timothychambers.net/2023/07/03/instagram-threads-and.html

@tchambers @chipotle re: "users punished for decisions they have no control over"

It's messy, but we should act as participants here. Not as customers presuming a fungible, neutral, distant service relationship. Or, worse, as the hapless eyeball-livestock role we've learned to inhabit on most sites. That's the real toxic idea, to me.

Users should come to know their instance's administrators and their inclinations - maybe even offer to pitch in, if you can. Also helps to know your neighborhood in the fediverse. Try out a few instances, move a few times.

I know many folks don't want to be bothered with all this. That's fine. That might make this kind of social media unsuitable for many folks and limit the network's growth.

It may also make it the only social media suitable for some folks when the "open" networks mean open to all-against-all channels of stress & abuse.

@lmorchard @chipotle

The issue here, Les, is a double defedeation of Threads.net can happen to users who know their admins well and are having a great time.

But then another server blocks their server of Threads federation, thus severing their social graph.

So they were totally participants in their server but still got chopped-up followers, with no recourse.

@tchambers @rolle while I don’t think it’s reasonable to defederate from those who federate from Meta I feel the general tone of the article is “Meta is bad but doesn’t care about you because you’re not numerous and therefore isn’t a danger to your community”.

Meta doesn’t necessarily need to care about something to destroy it, even with an involuntary movement of the tail. Also yes capitalism does perceive any growing non commercial place as a menace and usually wants to kill it in the egg.

@santiago @rolle

Glad you agree on double defederation as an unreasonable choice.

And you are right that even if Meta doesn't want to destroy the Fedi, and frankly doesn't care, and is using it for other goals, that doesn't make it harmless. Agreed.

My take: there are opportunities here, and the threats heare have better solutions that pre-emptive blocks.

@tchambers @chipotle But to rotate that scenario, the users of that 3rd de-federating server are also participants in their server and should be onboard with that de-federation or go elsewhere. The social graph is an agreement in both directions.

@lmorchard @chipotle

Totally agree: users that wanted to migrate to a double-defederationg server are and should be absolutely free to do so. Just like they are free to unfriend others in their social graph. Fully aligned with you on that.

@tchambers @rolle Do you mean opportunities in terms of growth or others ?

There are so many commercial networks out there I will gladly exchange community size for having just one small space that isn’t about selling stuff. I can access Instagram if I want (and I do sometimes) but I appreciate the idea of just that one thing that literally “isn’t part of this world”.

@tchambers @chipotle But that's what I'm saying: There is no third-party here - and there are no direct relationships either.

This is a shared system that manages indirect connections agreed-upon by many participants in the federation path - the graph is user to admin to admin to user. Each participant in that path has a bit of control and should be aware of each other.

i.e. you may have used a system I'm offering to follow someone on another system. But, your chosen relationship puts rows in my database and causes my system to send rows over to someone else's database - and I've got opinions about that. It'd be best if you, me, someone else, and your follow were all actively on the same page.

If this were more like a p2p system - or used an architecture where servers were simple store-and-forward nodes for encrypted blobs - there could be more of a direct and more easily portable relationship. And maybe admins who are happy just keeping black-box network services and hard drives spinning. But that's not the texture of this network.

@grayface_ghost @anttipeltola @SallyStrange @tchambers @chipotle is that judgement actually based on anything, though? If anything, Facebook is often overly sensitive, blocking people from mentioning eg Hitler in a purely historical manner. On a big instance some troublemakers will always slip though, but the vast majority of #Threads people are not nazis. Dull, maybe. But not nazis.

@mos_8502 @lmorchard @tchambers @chipotle THIS. WHAT 8502 SAID. Man I’m so tired of this contrarian “I’m better than the mob” high horse crap. We don’t want an effectively centralized, commercialized firehose of doom. We already did that! It was bad!

Meta can’t be trusted. Meta is bad. Profiting off of personal info and everyday interactions is bad. End of. Same goes for Twitter and the like. Good grief, why is it so hard to grasp. Is it really such a self-damnation to admit that simple fact?

@tchambers @chipotle on a complete side note I wish articles would compare like for like when talking users. I’ve seen multiple articles do this: giving active users for #Mastodon (most likely sourced from @Gargron), but registered users from eg #Threads. I realise the latter is bigger whatever numbers you compare, but it would be more indicative of the situation to not do completely unrelated numbers.

@Setok @chipotle

True, and with only 5 days under their belt, Thread users numbers are about the same thing between new registrants vs monthly active users, but soon those will diverge. Usual churn on new social nets is 30 to 40 percent.

@mos_8502 @lmorchard @tchambers I agree with that! If I could rephrase my thesis more gently, it would simply be that (1) Threads isn't interested in explicitly destroying Mastodon; (2) defederating edge cases (which I treated Threads as, because that's how I've seen IG/FB, but I'm open to the idea that's too generous) should be done in consensus with users; (3) defederating with giant general-interest instances like mastodon.social is an extremely fraught path.