@sl007 @cjd fun fact 1., the author of that paper is @1br0wn here
fun fact 2.: there's an IGF panel today with him, myself, and a few other fantastic people, about this very topic:
I'll share a stream link once I get it.
Another one is how big is the blocking instance. If we're talking hypothetically Facebook or Twitter joining fedi, I see no issue with any other fedi instance deciding not to federate with them, but I feel Facebook and Twitter would need to have very good and well-documented reason to be allowed to defederate from a fedi instance, due to their monopolistic position.
But very interested in @1br0wn's view.
@rysiek @sl007 @pettter @1br0wn @Argus
Great video, I finally watched to the end, clearly articulates reason I expect Fedeverse to outlast the silos.
However, a lot is riding on the right of mods to apply their CoC arbitrarily. If people *could* sue for wrongful defederation, you know exactly who would be first to the courthouse.
The issue is not with small instances defederating from one another, the issue is with a corporate hijack through centralization and then defederating all the small instances, akin to how e-mail got all but hijacked by the big players and spam blacklists make it hard to run small e-mail servers.
@pettter @cjd @sl007 @1br0wn @Argus so there needs to be a kind of measured, gradual response to instances defederating. Small instances do whatever they want, huge ones need to be bound by some rules I guess. That's an interesting way of introducing friction that works against economies of scale (we want such friction!).
@pettter @cjd @sl007 @1br0wn @Argus another interesting question is: what does "defederation" even mean in a network that is *expected* to be fractured, as fedi is? There are islands on fedi, and that's okay, so that needs to be taken into account when creating such rules.
Either way, at this point, I think the scrutiny really would need to focus only on Twitter and Facebook, if they are made to federate.
consider also that 2 years ago we already had the issue with a largish Japanese company (Pixiv/Pawoo) buying at *least* one Mastodon instance, becoming a funder of the project as well as taking over several smaller domains, and the "West" having to (partly) defederate from it due to legal differences over what content is permitted in JP and Europe - this hasn't really disrupted the Fediverse greatly..
@rysiek I just finished this. What a fascinating conversation - I love to see the talk range from the techical to policy.
@rysiek Hi! I would like to see it but I don’t like to click in GAFAM tools… Could you please publish it on Peertube? Thanks in advance :)
I'm chiming in here late to the conversation... so let me add a complexifier!
Different users express different *values* in federation. Some value limited interactions to protect their communities, and want federation to be "opt-in". Others value the discoverability that comes with scale - can I find William Shatner? The two values are opposed, and valid.
So in addition to thinking about "how", users in an interoperable environment also consider "whether."
@Argus @pettter @cjd @sl007 @1br0wn yes! I think I made that point in the panel when I mentioned that many instances will not want to federate with Facebook and but that's fine and the important thing is that that's a choice *users* will have (to go on an instance that does, or doesn't).
Also, I did make a poll about this very thing a while back, so there is data!
Nice, I'm looking forward to diving into this!
In the video @rysiek shared, I appreciated Maryant Fenandez Perez' emphasis on the privacy issue. Makes me think of @cjd's presentation at #apconf2020 - where despite defederating with Gab his posts ended up there. Maybe regulation will in part be in making sure instances honor the privacy requests of users...
@rysiek @pettter @cjd @sl007 This is one of the most controversial areas of the DSA/DMA, with some companies (eg booking.com) furiously lobbying not to be included. The EC has at various points talked about 12-20 companies globally in total. FB would clearly be in that list based on user numbers/market share in messaging and social media. But it’s a determination based on all of the company’s activities, not single products/services such as IM.
@1br0wn @pettter @cjd @sl007 yeah, I would expect this to be the most controversial part. There really isn't a good objective threshold here, so it comes down to a line in the sand and a political decision.
I for one feel Booking.com should be included. they are a de facto monopolist. So should Airbnb.com.
I guess talking to EDRi about this would make sense, eh @whvholst?
@1br0wn @rysiek @pettter @sl007
Thanks for the explanation, FWIW I think malicious compliance is the biggest threat here. I have a number of scenarios in my head but probably worst is:
1. FB has to federate, so they do - but only their EU service
2. Anti-EU extremist groups start servers
3. FB shrugs, "nothing we can do, rules are rules"
I believe @freakazoid used to work with FB so perhaps can shed some light on their corporate culture - help guess if this is a realistic risk...
I think 1) might not happen.
It is easier for em to quit.
Or to hold EU to ransom
Just like banning is easier and less expensive than moderation.
just btw – in 2 hours
See the Congress “regulars” Jack and the boss of Torsten Beeck
- they are explaining content “moderation” again to a Senate committee.
How can we watch?
Happy little incidents live via Senate or @CNET here
Server run by the main developers of the project It is not focused on any particular niche interest - everyone is welcome as long as you follow our code of conduct!