Skip to main content

Don't break the fediverse
#tromlive
Rokosun
This is how it should be, I really like how @peertube handles this, well done πŸ™‚
@PeerTube
Gergely Nagy 🐁
Why in the name of the fediverse I, the admin, may want to block any other instance when I have so much control over my own!?
Because I, as an admin, have an obligation to my users to shield them from harassment. It's far more practical to block an entire instance from federating with mine in any shape or form, than it is to ask my users to do so individually.

As an admin, I serve my users. If my users tell me they don't ever want to hear from $X, I'll block it for them.
Tio
I cannot see how this can end up well. So are you asking all of your users when you ban an instance? How about future users? Do you make sure they understand that your instance cannot communicate with others? And why is it better to put so much weight on 1 human (the admin) when everyone can take care of themselves?
Gergely Nagy 🐁
I do not ask my users. They ask me, I evaluate, and act accordingly. And yes, they fully understand that our instances will not be able to communicate in the future. That is the desired outcome. There were 0 complains in the past 4 years.
And why is it better to put so much weight on 1 human (the admin) when everyone can take care of themselves?
Because it is much easier for them if I take care of it. Future users won't even need to.

I'll give you an example in the next toot.
Gergely Nagy 🐁
Here's a scenario: my instances are LMBTQ+ friendly. This tends to attract a whole lot of harassers which none of us here want to ever interact with. So we first report the harassment to their instance admins, and if nothing happens, we just ban the whole thing. Problem solved, for all current and future users.

If I didn't ban them, each and every one of my users would have to, individually. Me doing it also makes ME the target of any retaliation, and I'm more equipped to handle that.
Gergely Nagy 🐁
I'm not saying that individuals being able to ban and mute whatever they want is a bad thing. It's great. But the admin being able to help the entire instance is also a good thing.

Care must be taken, indeed, blanket bans are a double edged sword. But sometimes it is the right call. Neither my users, nor I ever want to interact with instances full of transphobes or other hateful people. Cutting those off at the admin level is more practical than every user doing it on their own.
Tio
I understand you. However cutting instances seems an extreme approach. You cannot evaluate very well the userbase of those instances or yours. So you end up trying to battle cancer by doing surgery with a kitchen knife. The side effects of this are really concerning to me, simply because it makes admins like you get comfortable with such approaches, and you end up cutting connections between individuals. If this is your instance then I cannot see where iy makes it transparent what instances you have blocked https://trunk.mad-scientist.club/about/more
Gergely Nagy 🐁
Indeed, I cannot fully evaluate it. But if repeated harassers don't get dealt with, that's an instance I do not want to federate with. Any good people on those, can choose an instance that has admins who are willing to act on reports and not just make things worse.

If any of my users report that they are in any way inconvenienced with an instance ban, we'll figure something out. None of them did so far.

Yep, that's one of my instances, and I intentionally don't make my blocklist public.
Gergely Nagy 🐁
To phrase it differently, using your metaphor: banning an instance with repeat abusers where admins join in on the "fun" may seem harsh, but I'd rather undergo cancer removal operation (which may have undesirable side effects) than tell my immune system to just work harder (which would end up with me dead).
Tio
This blocking is a blind game. I go on your instance and have no idea that you chose to not connect with other instances, The fediverse is already hard to grasp for most people, nowgo ahead and explain to them that it is not really like you can connect with anyone who has as federated account. It depends where these accounts get created. It is like XMPP server admins cut ties with other XMPP servers, and you have no clue about that.

This is a bad practice. Non transparent, confusing, rushed, unnecessary. Let the people take care of themselves and not break the fediverse.
This entry was edited (1 year ago)
Gergely Nagy 🐁
It's not a blind game. I go to great lengths to research an instance before I block them. I explore other avenues first. My users - past, present and future - know my stance on blocking, they are aware that there are a dozen or two blocked instances. That's part of the onboarding process. This works for us fine, and has saved a lot of trouble for my users.

It is necessary, because asking each and every user to block the same stuff is not very practical. They don't want to deal with that.
Tio
Your instance has 7 users from what I see, but for instances larger than say 100 users this is not applicable. And it backfires. Also, why this need to take care of users when they can easily take care of themselves? Same way you do it for them, they can do it for themselves. You see a weird post/user, hover the name and block. Done. So the better and easier tools users have in this regards, the better will be for us all. Admins would not need to take care of these users.

For example if we would brainstorm more we could come up with an opt-in feature for users of any instances if they want to let the admins moderate stuff for them. Like an adblock list made by the admins. If I enable that then all of your blocking will protect me too, the user. But if I do not want that, let me see boobs and stuff and connect with anyone on the fediverse.
This entry was edited (1 year ago)
Gergely Nagy 🐁
This one does, yes. It's not the only one I run.

They technically can take care of themselves, yes. But it's much easier for everyone if they don't have to. Instead of 100+ people blocking the same things, a handful of them reporting to me, and me blocking is much more practical, and has the same net effect.

They see a bad post/user? They report. Done. For every single user, not just one.

I'm here to help my users, not make them do more work. It's better when they don't even see the bad.
Gergely Nagy 🐁
My users are aware of which instances I blocked. The list is publicly not available, but my users can take a look if they want to, and can decide themselves whether that's ok for them or not.

And I repeat, this is the crucial point: not seeing a lot of bad in the first place, but still being able to report and/or block at the user level gives a much nicer experience than just the latter.

It's like spam filters. Your users can filter their own spam. It works better if you do globally too.
Tio
I am not talking about spam. But blocking instances because some of the users there post things others do not like. I repeat, an adblock-like list with bad actors, for each instance, is a great idea. Let users choose that protection (opt in if possible). Like a filter that users apply themselves. I would hate if Firefox would have an adblocker baked into the browser itself and I could do nothing about it. Let me decide what websites to visit, same way let me decide who to follow and connect with on the fediverse.
Gergely Nagy 🐁
Good thing is: you can do that! And my users who prefer all of this to be handled for them, so they don't have to deal with it, can have it our way.

Having both options available is great. If purely user-level blocking works for you, great! It doesn't for many of my users, so I block for them. Everyone wins.

The instances I block, my users would block them anyway, so the net effect is the same, and it doesn't break fedi. It just keeps bad actors in their corner. I call that a win.
Tio
But you didnt get my message. An adblock-like list would be best for all.
Gergely Nagy 🐁
That'd still require my users to use the list one by one. They don't want to deal with any of that. They delegate the blocking and the backlash that comes with it to me.

Having the option to block at an instance level makes this possible. An admin can choose not to use the feature, and defer to users to handle blocks themselves. Users can also ask their admin to do it for them.

Both methods have their pros and cons, neither is better than the other, they're suited for different scenarios.
Tio
It is far better to have a simple toggle to opt in for the instance's list of banned users/instances. No idea how you do not see that. Maybe because you instance is made of 7 people. Mine has 600. You can't sit down and decide with 600 people. That won't work.
Gergely Nagy 🐁
All my users are fine with me blocking. They wouldn't sign up otherwise. So they effectively sign up for the blocklist. Practically the same effect.

Whoever comes to my instances, agrees with the blocking. It's right there in the rules of my other servers. They can choose to go elsewhere. If they come to mine, they're fine with the status quo.
Maybe because you instance is made of 7 people.
Like I said, this is not the only instance I run.
Gergely Nagy 🐁
Another scenario, which happened just last week: some of my users reported an abuser, I looked into it, blocked that single person on the instance level, so they don't harass others. People from their instance - including their admin - started to dogpile on me a few minutes after. So I blocked them on my account. Then they started to harass random users on my instance, people who never interacted with them before.

So I blocked the entire instance to avoid having my users harassed.
Gergely Nagy 🐁
If I didn't block at the instance level, they would've dogpiled on hundreds of users. It's not reasonable to expect them all to handle the fallout from other users blocking people as users.

This is where admins need to step in, and block the abusers hard.
Tio
The same way you easily blocked them, users can easily block them. And there won't be any collateral damages. I have blocked many users too. It is easy. Users have such great control over who can contact them, what they can block, etc..
Gergely Nagy 🐁
You still don't get it. My users do not want to deal with it. They could, they choose not to. They come to my instance, because I deal with blocking, and the fallout.

No matter how easy it is to press a button, it has other consequences (see my dogpiling example earlier), possibly for other users too. They don't want to deal with that.

If I had an opt-in adblock, every user of mine would subscribe. So it's effectively an instance-wide block. Why bother with the extra steps then?
Tio
But the practice of opting in for an adblock list like thing, is a better practice overall.
Gergely Nagy 🐁
An adblock-like list many subscribe to does not prevent collateral damage. Those who subscribe to it, will end up blocking people and servers the same way an instance-wide block would.

All such a list accomplishes is some people not using them, at the cost of forcing everyone else into an extra step to opt into it.

Collateral damage will still be there. More burden on the users, too, and a larger attack surface. No thanks, we'll go with instance blocks, they're more practical for us.
Gergely Nagy 🐁
To reiterate: instance-wide blocks aren't the be-all, end-all solution. They don't work for every server, or every user, either. But they do work for a fair number of servers & users, usually on top of user-level blocking.

Same goes for user-level blocking.

Both have their pros and cons, both have their place. Neither is inherently better than the other, because they're better for different scenarios. Having them both gives us the flexibility to set things up as we wish.
Tio
An adblock-like list many subscribe to does not prevent collateral damage. Those who subscribe to it, will end up blocking people and servers the same way an instance-wide block would.

They will, not you. That's better for whoever wants that.
All such a list accomplishes is some people not using them, at the cost of forcing everyone else into an extra step to opt into it.

Then make it opt-out. So much easier. No need for you to manage their lives.
Gergely Nagy 🐁
I don't think that banning harassers is breaking the fediverse. Anyone who happened to be on a wrong instance by mistake, can easily move elsewhere, they're not tied to any one server, the protocol has a quite reasonable solution for migrating to another server to help with that, too.

Banning harassers at the instance level keeps my users happy, and on the fediverse. It makes Fedi a safer, happier place.

My users want to enjoy being here, not spend their time blocking. That's what I'm for
Tio
Anyone who happened to be on a wrong instance by mistake, can easily move elsewhere, they're not tied to any one server
Easier said than done. Moving all the time is for sure not an easy task. Plus you never know who what banned.
Joel de Bruijn
Otherwise (as mentioned by others int his thread) it introduces scaling problems.

Les say, there is an instance filled with 50% incels spreading hate.

Those other 50% lurking in to that, know what they signed up for.

I totally getting the whole instance blocked.

Alternative: instances federating on a allow-list basis instead of an block-list of other instances and be transparant about that.
Joel de Bruijn
Since this thread I do see examples where blocking seems extreme:

This rather polite conversation starting here:
https://gladtech.social/@Are0h@ubiqueros.com/109513894286320148

Let to this respons and below:
https://gladtech.social/@vesperto/109517746032804062

Which let to an instance block:
https://ubiqueros.com/notes/98z37fr0mw

Ro (@Are0h)

After seeing how the admin of gladtech[DOT]social handled a recent situation with a racist user, I'm going to recommend blocking that instance.
Ubiqueros: A PV Joint
This entry was edited (6 months ago)

Mark reshared this.

Arne Babenhauserheide
I do get why people ban entire instances: Requiring every user to block every spammer manually does not scale: Spamming is then cheaper than blocking spammers.
Tio
I think the opposite is true: instead of 1 human dealing with the blocking for everyone's needs, which cannot scale up (maybe some instances bother some of your users but not others), then why not let the users do your job for themselves? Users can easily block others and entire instances on Mastodon. The moment you try to become everyone's dad, you will fuck things up, because not all of your "kids" are bothered by the same things. And you end up breaking the fediverse by blowing up bridges.
Arne Babenhauserheide
One person blocking 100 spammers vs. 100 people blocking 100 spammers each β€” that’s 100 actions vs. 10.000 actions.

If your instance is so big that the moderator cannot decide whether something is spam, then your instance might be too big.

Or you need tools that scale better without centralizing control. Like the ones Freenet has: https://www.draketo.de/software/decentralized-moderation

The path towards decentralized moderation

Verstreute Werke von ((Ξ»()'Dr.ArneBab))
www.draketo.de
Tio
If you get spammed by bots from particular instances of course no one would argue you should not block this. I am talking about unwanted content. Admins who block other instances based on politics, nudity, whatever else.
Arne Babenhauserheide
If you don’t like that, choose a different instance.

An instance can be a community, not only a service.

People can choose an instance precisely because of the rules of the instance.

Why should people who don’t like nudity not be able to organize on their own instance that blocks all nudity?
Tio
I've heard that reply many times before: if you don't like it, go somewhere else. But this is irrelevant for what I am saying. I argue that the practice of banning instances by admins is detrimental to the entire fediverse. Same way you think banning nudity is ok because you have a little community of people who are afraid of nipples, others may think that being "gay" is detrimental to their own community. And so forth. And in the name of thousands, a dozen people will interrupt the communication. Let the "gays" talk to the nudists! You know what I mean!?

And I was showcasing the example of Peertube which provides a great set of tools to keep your instance clean and safe without nuking any bridge.
Arne Babenhauserheide
Let’s replace the nipples and gays with targeted insults and ganging up on people.

Do you understand what I mean?

If you don’t like that, have a look at the tools that actually provide scaling defense against spam and such which I linked in my previous post: https://rollenspiel.social/@ArneBab/108353120076089161

That said, I still think having instances with per-instance rules has value.

Your argument "banning is detrimental" doesn’t quite work, because in the Fediverse you can easily have several accounts.

Arne Babenhauserheide (@ArneBab@rollenspiel.social)

@tio@social.trom.tf One person blocking 100 spammers vs. 100 people blocking 100 spammers each β€” that’s 100 actions vs. 10.000 actions.
Die Heimat fΓΌr Rollenspieler
Arne Babenhauserheide
And I have experienced how an attempted takeover by Neonazis feels. I want my instance-moderators to block those instantly and without remorse.

Similar has happened on Mastodon: https://blogghoran.se/2019/07/12/on-mastodon-and-nazis/
Tio
Look all I'm saying is that instead of using these primitive tools that are nontransparent, and decide for thousands of users, we should be smarter. Think about an adblock like list. Instance admins can have that and let users opt in in their settings or when they create an account. That list will ban all of these "bad" people for the users who choose. This way you dont have to cut ties with any instance, let the users decide. Simple.
Joel de Bruijn
I can imagine some people having dejavus from Newsnet server messages about mailservers. And the perks of blocking a domain (federation-level) versus blocking a user (individual level).

Cant blame Fediverse for introducing moderation at the federation level (next to the individual level).
Joel de Bruijn
`

I can imagine moderating as a form of curation.
Like a community of schools operating peertube instances.

For pupils it would be very clear: if I go that instance I only see things my school offers as part of curricula without a myriad other vids.
Tio
Yes. Why would you want to block other instances when you can only promote whatever you want on your instance?!
Joel de Bruijn
If the effect is the same, sure.
So non-promoted content from other instances dont show in search and accounts dont have access?
Tio
All of what you see on an instance, including the search, can be curated yes. While at the same time if a user finds otehr peertube channels into the wild and wants to follow them from your own, they can. So you keep it clean, and also not break any connections that users may want to create.
Joel de Bruijn
In this model, can individual users from a malicious instance interact with users on my instance?
Tio
Yes. But your users can defend themselves easily. And we can come up with even better tools to protect against that without the admin deciding for everyone else what is good to follow/interact with.
Joel de Bruijn
So the earlier upstream discussion in this thread stays the same.

And 'only promote what you want' doesnt solve it.
Tio
What does not not solve? If you curate your instance then you won't be flooded on that instance with nonsnese content. On Friendica for examples users can even limit whet they post to only those who follow them and such, so you don't even reach the outside world. Plenty of good tools already to keep admins and users happy. No need for a nuking solution. And more good tools can be invented if people would seek for such a solution rather than the primitive one of nuking other instances at the admin level.
Joel de Bruijn
I think every perspective is mentioned earlier so no need for me to repeat them.

If users seek a safe-heaven in the form of a partly isolated instance, let them.

Same goes for closed forums, closed social media groups in central systems.

Federating the system doesnt make this need obsolete all of a sudden.
Tio
But you are missing my point too. Somehow. I didn't say you should not have that. I said this practice, used by so many and for no good reasons, is damaging the fediverse. While at the same time there are better approaches like I mentioned about Peertube. We should be wiser and think further ahead for this fediverse thing, so we don't break it. If a massive instance blocks left and right other instances, and people don't even know that, then it is complete madness and breaks what we call as the fediverse.

That's my point: the practice of banning entire instances at the admin level is a very rudimentary and in the long term harmful approach. We have better tools that won't create these side effects.
Joel de Bruijn
I think peer-2-peer is more suitable for what you want (censoring is routed around) then federation.

Moderating at the federation level is intrinsic to a federation, at least at a technical level. To compensate for that one need governance.

Which is hard for loosely coupled federation nodes. When a federation acts as a community its different, but thats not the case.
Tio
Yes p2p seems to be the best approach, but this doesn't mean we should break the fediverse for no good reason. I have several instances and I see no reason in blocking the connection to other instances.
Joel de Bruijn
Breaking things for no good reason is never advisable.
If breaking is 'by design' I acknowledge the existence of good reasons.
anime graf mays πŸ›°οΈπŸͺ
I asked for one feature for poast from @alex and @mkljczk and people still cry about it til today. they probably broke fediverse more than anyone else ive seen to date
@Alex Gleason @marcin mikoΕ‚ajczak πŸ‡΅πŸ‡±
G117CH
Wouldn't the proposed federation method make a mess with MediaProxy, etc., not wanting to have CP on your server, etc.? I guess the admin would have to block them in the proxy config?
anime graf mays πŸ›°οΈπŸͺ
@tioi didnt read any of this i just saw "break the fediverse" and I thought of marcin immediately
@Tio
G117CH
Kk. πŸ˜‹
Noided Β° ^ Β°
happy for you or sorry to hear that
Spooktober Coon
@tio"Keep your instance clean?" There's a way to permanently keep out the fags, niggers, and jews????
@Tio
Tio
If you are bothered about what people fuck, what they believe in, or the color of their skin, then ignore or block them. And if others want to ignore idiots, they can easily block you ofc.
Sandra
Even coming from the more block&ban-happy perspective, as I am, I agree with this approach. You can still nuke the worst of the worst, while keep your trending etc clean from grey area iffy stuff. On my Fedi instance (currently running a Pleroma fork) I ended up trying to disable the entire homepage for non-logged-in users.πŸ€·πŸ»β€β™€οΈ
⇧