I am gathering a list of people who want to be involved in the discussion around the formation of a "United Federation of Instances" which is an attempt to combat the fracturing of the fediverse and the general spreading of misinformation WRT moderation decisions.

If anyone is interested in being a part of it let me know in the replies. I will add you to the list, share the draft proposal, and we can start discussions. I have several people already interested.

@freemo why not just publish the draft first and have the discussion in the open? I would think you could generate more interest that way.

Have you reached out to other instance admin about this?

I feel like this could result in some negative unintended consequences. De-federation, and the social threat of de-federation is the main tool to apply pressure to instance admins that are not sufficiently moderating their community.
This seems it would make that process harder.

@ejg The intent is to do just this.. I just want a good starting point to kick off the discussion.. So im starting with a private discussion, going to refine the draft there, then im going to open it to everyone to contribute.

Yes I am working in private to get some admins and even users on board. I dont want to go public till we have a decent number of supporters just to help counter any backlash people might throw at us.

To your comment about making it harder... sort of.. an instance can always leave the UFI for starters, second, that process SHOULD be harder, at least in terms of collecting evidence and having some due process. The beauty is having curated evidence means even servers outside of the UFI can, if they wish, use us as a source of fact-checking..

@ejg Would you like to see a copy of the current draft in private?

@freemo I would be more interested in have the discussion in the open.

@freemo this seems to mostly add a layer of bureaucracy to the process of de-federation.

Those that are not in the UFI could be seen as bad actors.

This would penalize those that choose not to join the UFI, or that get expelled because they chose to de-federate from an instance, after a judgement went the other way, because they felt it was necessary to protect their community.

@ejg The intent is to make sure that those not in the UFI are **not** seen as bad actors.. I explicitly left out any concept of assuming non-UFI members were bad actors. The idea is that if you arent in the UFI people in the UFI can judge on an inndividual basis how they want to handle you

And yes it adds a layer of beurocracy, but the intent of that layer is to ensure blocking is done in an informed and evidence based manner