Part 7 of Strategies for the free fediverses.  As the first post in the series discusses, the "free fediverses" are regions of the fediverse that reject Meta and surveillance capitalism, and these strategies position the free fediverses as an alternative to Threads and "Meta's fediverses". Join the discussion in the

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.blahaj.zone/post/7477620

Transitive defederation – defederating from instances that federate with Threads as well as defederating from Threads – isn’t likely to be an all-or-nothing thing in the free fediverses. Tradeoffs are different for different people and instances. This is one of the strengths of the fediverse, so however much transitive defederation there winds up being, I see it as overall as a positive thing – although also messy and complicated.

The recommendation here is for instances to consider #TransitiveDefederation: discuss, and decide what to do. I’ve also got some thoughts on how to have the discussion – and the strategic aspects.

(Part 7 of Strategies for the free fediverses )

  • Chozo@kbin.social
    5·
    11 months ago

    explain to me why I should care what the designer thinks anyway

    Because they’re the ones who ultimately control the future of the AP protocol. How it behaves today may not be how it behaves tomorrow. If their intent was to create communities that are isolated islands on the internet, they would’ve just made a new phpBB. So understanding their design philosophy is going to be important when it comes to running a community on that protocol.

    • Excrubulent@slrpnk.netEnglish
      11·
      11 months ago

      What matters is what can be done with the protocol. Defederation is baked in at this point, and if it goes off the rails we can just fork it.

      And I can see you don’t have anything to back up your claim that federation is somehow an unimportant side feature of federation.

      • orgrinrt@lemmy.worldEnglish
        2·
        11 months ago

        Man, you had a good point initially, but now you’re just really stubbornly defending a position you must realize is a really thin one. You’re arguing that they implied defederation isn’t important, but that’s a straw man you yourself constructed, not what they said at all.

        I think you might have lost sight of what’s rational for pride or something.