• gullible@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    If A, B, and C are federated and A defederates B and B does not defederate A, then it would look like this. A>B=C

    A cannot see B, B can see A through C, and C can interact with both. Comment federation when B comments on A can be a bit spotty, from what I’ve seen.

    • Risk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      As far as I understand, this isn’t quite right (unless it’s changed recently).

      If A defeds B, then A no longer sends new posts to B, accepts comments or posts from B users, or receives new posts from B. Any comments from B users on A’s old posts (made before defederation) are no longer acknowledged by A.

      I think A users can still interact with B’s posts, but then I haven’t seen any beehaw users in forever. So perhaps not?

      C can obviously still interact with both A and B posts normally. On posts from C, both A and B users can still interact.

      So, in short defederation creates a hard wall preventing interaction between A and B. The only way A and B users can interact is on C.

      It’s unfortunate as beehaw would have benefitted from a uni-directional defederation (i.e. preventing .world users from posting on beehaw, but not preventing .beehaw users from posting on .world. Unfortunately, it’s both.)

      • gullible@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        It may have changed in the last few months, but I specifically recall seeing hexbear user comments on lemmy.ml posts well over a month after the one-sided defederation while on my sh.itjust.works account. I checked from at least 3 separate instances, lemm.ee, .world, and .works, as it was more than a little confusing for me. That’s also how I learned about spotty comment federation.