The Issue
Currently, it seems to be that the majority of instance defederations happen silently on SJW: As of writing this, SJW currently blocks federation with 86 instances [1], yet, from what I can tell [2], there has not been 86 announcements. For clarity, this is not intended to be construed as an accusation, pointed at the SJW admins, that this is some sort of intentional obfuscation; however, for the sake of transparency and understanding, I think it would be a good practice to open these practices up to the rest of the instance.
Proposal
I propose that whenever an instance is to be defederated, an open (ie unlocked) post should be published by the SJW admins (eg it could be published to !main@sh.itjust.works) detailing the name of the instance that is to be defederated, the rationale for why it is to be defederated (including evidence to support the rationale), and what steps would need to be taken by the respective instance’s admins in order for that instance to be re-federated.
Benefits
- I think it would provide users with an opportunity to better understand the rationale and alignment SJW’s admins.
- I think it helps keep the administrators (both locally and federated) publicly accountable.
- Having an open announcement for defederation could invite discussion on the topic. I think this discussion could offer enlightening insight.
- It will create a sort of searchable database for users to reference if they wish to know why a given instance is defederated.
- I think it could potentially reduce the administrative burden on the admins in that it serves as a sort of FAQ in place of users repetitively asking the admins why an instance was defederated.
- I think that It may provide a more targeted opportunity for the admins of the defederated instance to directly, and publicly, engage with the issue.
Drawbacks
- If there ends up being a large volume of defederations, this practice may end up becoming a sizeable burden for the SJW admins. One note on this is that it may be possible for some defederations to be grouped together, but this would have to be done carefully so as to not become obfuscative.
Additional Context
I think a potential counterargument could be: “If a user wishes to know more about why an instance is defederated, then they should just make a post asking about it, or they should dm the admins.”; however, I think this may actually increase the workload on the admins if the question is posed frequently enough, furthermore, I fear that this sort of active approach on the part of the inquirer could have a sort of chilling effect: the topic of “instance defederation” is often a contentious one, and some may be hesitant to actively open themselves up to that sort of potential conflict in order to seek the desired information. This proposal would offer sanctuary for the inquisitive lurker.
References
- Type: Website. Publisher: sh.itjust.works. Accessed: 2025-03-03T05:15Z. URI: https://sh.itjust.works/instances.
- See the “Blocked Instances” tab.
- I simply searched for posts with keywords like “defederate” and “block” in !main@sh.itjust.works.
Transparency is good. But I’m not sure announcing or voting on each defederation is necessary.
In cases where there is concern about another instance’s culture or general user behavior then an announcement or even a vote may be appropriate. We have done this in the past for exploding-heads (link) and threads (link).
However, most of the instances on our block list either (a.) allow pedo/loli/CSAM type content, or (b.) are unmoderated/abandoned instances where spammers set up shop. In those cases we just hit the block button and move on with our day. We have sometimes made announcements (link), but not consistently. In the case of a CSAM-friendly instance I would not want to give them free advertising by making a public announcement.
If you are ever curious why a particular instance was defederated, look at our Fediseer profile below. We try to keep the Censures list up to date with our instance block list, and note the rationale for blocking each instance. And if you see something odd in that list please let us know. At least once an instance was unblocked after a user brought it to our attention (link).
[…] I’m not sure […] voting on each defederation is necessary. […]
My proposal does not include voting on cases of defederation.
Yes, sorry. My reply wandered off track a bit. In my defense, it was late and I should have been sleeping instead of spending time on Lemmy.
In short, all I meant to say is that I generally agree with your proposal, and we do have a history of announcing and discussing defederations in advance in some cases, but I wouldn’t make it a blanket rule.
Of course that’s purely my personal opinion. If the rest of the community feels differently (including the other admins) then I’m all ears.
I’m somewhat new here but I don’t believe there has ever been a defederated that went contested where the admins didn’t share more insights. I do like the transparency but recognize that it comes with extra work. I believe I read somewhere thedude saying that they would only defederate for spam or bot attack reasons. Making it a rule to require a post to be made only of its defederating with one of the top 25 or top 50 or top 100 instances would be a more reasonable ask?
That’s sweet and all, but my first response (if I was an admin) is fuck that noise. It’s too much work. It’s not the number of instances that would be the issue, it’s potentially the hundreds of opinions that would need sorting through from the users.
I believe the idea is still good and in the interest of transparency but it’s just not practical. There are still a good number of “fringe” instances as well as spam instances out there and I just want the admins to nuke that shit from orbit.
Like you pointed out, all a person needs to do is look at logs to see that an instance was defederated and I am not sure engaging the admins in a philosophical debate about why they blocked an instance is going to be productive.
If an admin blocks instances, cool. If they block too many, that limits visibility for instance users and people will leave. If they don’t block any, people will leave because of all the shitposting.
I say let the admins keep doing their admin things and grow their instance the way they choose. Time filters out instances with bad admins, so any problems will self-resolve.
My only ask is that admins post clear instance rules and keep the server running.
When was the last time one was defederated? I remember a bunch early on, and I think I remember an admin post about it being mostly instances that were either CSAM, or spam.
I’m pretty sure a bunch of those are dead anyway. I clicked on 5 random instances from the block list, 1 had an invalid cert, 3 were were not resolved, 1 had a single user and hadn’t posted in over a year.
That does not address your concerns going forward though.
You are correct that there were a bunch of defederations early on. It has been a rare occurrence over the past year or so.
In October 2024 we defederated from some Misskey instances that were being used for spamming: https://sh.itjust.works/post/26714129
In December 2023 we defederated from threads following a vote.
