Has Beehaw stated why lemmy.ml and kbin.social were spared, but lemmy.world and sh.itjust.works were defederated when all four share similar growth and open registration?
hey folks, here’s a quick update on our decision to defederate from
sh.itjust.works! (and here’s sh.itjust.works
[https://sh.itjust.works/post/129725]’s side of this update) we got in touch
with the head admin over there, The Dude, and we had a pretty good chat about
our concerns and reason for defe...
(Posting to lemmy.world seems to be disabled so I'm posting this here instead.)
This inconsistency has been bothering me, so I went poking around in their support community, and the best I could find was a statement saying they had reached out to the admins of both. Apparently they expected @ruud@lemmy.world to reply to something that didn't seem like a question as indicated by his response in Beehaw Support. As such, they claim to have no roadmap to eventually refederate with lemmy.world.
I added a reply from another instance, but I'm guessing I won't receive a reponse so if anyone knows, I would like to better understand the issue. It's quite annoying feeling like I'm missing out, especially when I'm seeing inflammatory overly generalized statements from kbin.social users about how lemmy.world deserved to be defederated over in this post on lemmy.ml.
I know that many people don't like their defederation decision but I think they did it in good faith. And they did state they want to refederate with the two instances once the mod tools are in place.
To be clear there are problematic users on nearly every instance. I’ve had to moderate quite a few kbin users, but it’s not standing out from the pack as a particularly problematic place as of this moment.
As for lemmy.ml, I have a stupid theory that since the signup is closed, those spammers cannot get accounts over there.