From your home instance, go to search and enter the community like this:

!dndnext@ttrpg.network

Staying in federation with an instance that actively embraces bad actors increases the visibility of users here to those bad actors, and gives them access to our community. Defederating such an instance is a basic best practice in the Fediverse.

More importantly for those who wring their hands about not limiting the whole community -- failure to defederate from bad actor instances will be factored in when good productive instances with content folks here want to see decide whether to defederate us. (Remember that this place is already defederated by one prominent instance, which is a material detriment to users here.)

It is reasonable and normal to disagree about where the line is drawn in terms of what instances deserve defederation. It's often ambiguous what's a normal instance with sloppy moderation and a few bad apples[^1] versus what's a place that is run by and for bad actors.

There's a wide range of standards that can be applied. It seems like the general vibe can be broken down into three groups:

• Only defederate spammers and child porn
• Only defederate spammers child porn and tankies
• Defederate spammers child porn, tankies, and rampantly fascist troll farms

I don't think anyone has really advocated for anything aggressive than that on here (could be wrong)

[^1]: Although also important to remember that the point of the bad apples thing is that they spoil the whole batch if you don't take them out.

It’s up to you to come together, discuss, and reach a consensus. If you wish to add, remove, or modify a rule, make a post, garner support from other members, and I’ll implement the change. This invitation extends beyond our immediate community - I welcome input from everyone across the fediverse. Again to be clear, I gave an example of modifying rules but this applies to anything that I have the ability to do on this instance.

@TheDude@sh.itjust.works what constitutes "consensus"? A majority, a supermajority? 100% buy-in on most important topics is simply not on the table, and setting a bar too high for action is tantamount to predetermining that action will not be taken.

(I have no problem with the tyranny of the admin, either, as long as it's clear what direction the site is headed in so I know whether to stick around or not.)

You have no right to tell me what I can see and respond to anymore than I have a right to tell you who you can and cannot block.

That's also not what defederating is. Nobody's speech or ability to see speech is being restricted, since we are all free to set up accounts on other instances. Users are making a reasonable request to the instance owner for a normal moderation action that is in line with stated community standards and past defederation decisions (i.e., lemmygrad); the instance owner is free to honor it or not.

The basic question, which every fediverse instance has been having to deal with since inception, is how to draw the line on communities that willingly include bad actors. It has to be drawn somewhere, and where you draw it says a lot.

lol, defederating is not anything like jail

• Federating is like sitting at a big table with a bunch of people in a restaurant.
• Blocking is moving a couple seats down from someone who's being an asshole so you can't hear them anymore (but meanwhile they're still harassing your friends, you're just ignoring it)
• Defederating is separating the group so that you're no longer at the table with the asshole and their asshole friends

Now, in a tolerant society, we should be tolerant of people who are merely annoying. But not people who are normalizing violence and hate. There are people you fundamentally should not sit at a table with.

It's important to understand the difference between a good faith disagreement and bad faith propaganda and harassment campaigns, which is what the right wing troll farms deal in.

Nazi instances will proliferate and it benefits nobody else to stay in federation with them. It makes the whole fediverse less usable and more dangerous. And whether you like it or not it sends a message to people who are targeted by them that they are not truly welcome here, regardless of whatever moderation rules are espoused.

And in North America, as in many places, these people are acting as a propaganda arm for a literal violent terror movement. Sometimes under a fig leaf of ”irony” but it makes no material difference whether they’re chuckling when they spew shit to me

This is surfacing a fundamental division between mindsets in federation: the people who say don't worry about which instance you're on are bought into the promise that federation can "just work" like email. But the reality is that if you care about moderation at all (like, even to the extent of being for or against having any of it) then sooner or later you're going to have to make harder decisions about instances.

It's pretty normal for long-term fediverse users to change instances several times over the course of however long this stuff has been around. It's unclear to me whether any existing Lemmy instances would be a good fit for me in the long term TBH and I would expect that to be true for some time, as so many instances are still figuring things out internally.

Defederation decisions like beehaw made are extremely normal and rational. With their level of moderation staffing and for their user base, they determined it was unsustainable to remain federated with instances that were generating more moderation workload. If it wasn't them today it would be another instance tomorrow; this will keep happening.

Also, I see a lot of folks saying this is lazy for beehaw, but it's important to understand that from their perspective, this problem wouldn't arise if moderators here were keeping a cleaner house and preventing bad actors from using the platform. (Not saying either take is entirely correct.)

In a sense, moderation best practices on the fediverse are inimically hostile to scaling the fediverse up to new users. (And if you ask folks with smaller but prosperous instances that have healthy internal vibes, they'll probably tell you this is good.)

This is much more fraught on Lemmy than it is on Mastodon, because you're building communities hosted on a particular instance and there's not currently a way to move the community. So, if I were to start a community here and then finally decide a year from now that this place is too big a defederation target to stay on, what do I do?

Similarly, to avoid endless duplication of communities, folks have been encouraged to participate with existing communities instead of starting a new one on their own instance everytime. But anyone here who has gotten involved with communities on Beehaw will now no longer be able to do so unless they move to a different instance. (Which may be hard, as open instances that are easy to join are the ones that are harder for small instances to handle, which is what caused this in the first place.)

Some of those folks are going to create their own alternative communities on their servers, which to any third-party servers not in the loop on the defederation drama will be potentially confusing. This has the potential to create a cultural tend toward polarization of community norms between everything goes and what we see on Mastodon as content warning policing, but of which are, to me, undesirable.

The best case scenario is that the majority of large communities end up being hosted on instances that have sufficiently rigorous moderation standards and sufficiently robust moderation staff to not impose an unsustainable workload on smaller instances. Then as long as everyone who's not a nazi federates with those instances, things should go smoothly...ish. But that's hard both because "sufficiently rigorous" is different for everyone and because moderation labor doesn't grow on trees.

Defederation is an inevitable fact of life for a federated ecosystem and it won't always be for things where everyone agrees (just look at the fediblock tag on mastodon). The important thing is that instance owners have clear criteria for how they defederate from other instances and transparency about their reasons for having done so, so that their users and other instances have the correct expectations for their future behavior.

It's early days for a lot of instances and probably many of us will end up migrating to other instances as it becomes clear which ones make decisions that suit our values.

What I do worry about is the fact that folks are setting up communities wherever they first land and Lemmy doesn't yet have tools for migrating a community between instances (correct me if I'm wrong about that). That seems like a ticking time bomb in some ways.