(Apparently) Unpopular Opinion: I think defederating Threads is the wrong move, because it just locks people into Threads. If people on Twitter had the ability to move to Mastodon AND still interact with all the people they did before, I think we would have seen even more people move. The only reason I still check twitter at all is because I have a few close friends who didn't move. Meta is likely going to have big adoption of people who aren't ready to go to Mastodon, but are interested in getting out of the dumpster-on-fire that twitter seems to continue to be. But blocking those people from being able to join the more popular Lemmy instances, given no actual policy violations, just will keep people in Meta that otherwise could leave. With the "however" being: It's not quite clear to me that Threads users will be interacting with Lemmy as much Mastodon, if Threads were a Reddit replacement, it's more directly connected.

[–] R51 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

If they add user-level defed, I'd be pretty on board with defederation being used for stuff like bot farms.

As it stands, with the current lack of user-level defed-- defederating is a server/user-whitelist, server-blacklist function.

Ideally I think it should be a server/user-whitelist, user-blacklist function, where a server-blacklist is reserved for botfarms/illegal content.

[–] HelloHotel 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

more ideally would be as many levels of granular control as possable for users and their clients.

However Servers ghould get

whitelist/blacklist of users
blacklist/whitelist of communities (prevents blocking servers for just their groups)
blacklist/whitelist of servers
server federation

The point is to blacklist as specific as needed, EX: dont block lemmy dot Marxist Lennonists just its extremist communities (ml admins have a ~~communism~~ chinaphile problem)

load more comments (19 replies)