this post was submitted on 04 Aug 2026
189 points (97.5% liked)
Fediverse
43296 readers
920 users here now
A community to talk about the Fediverse and all it's related services using ActivityPub (Mastodon, Lemmy, Mbin, etc).
If you wanted to get help with moderating your own community then head over to !moderators@lemmy.world!
Rules
- Posts must be on topic.
- Be respectful of others.
- Cite the sources used for graphs and other statistics.
- Follow the general Lemmy.world rules.
Learn more at these websites: Join The Fediverse Wiki, Fediverse.info, Wikipedia Page, The Federation Info (Stats), FediDB (Stats), Sub Rehab (Reddit Migration)
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
You gotta ask the OOP about that, but my guess is, in a graph that shows instances that defederate, why include an instance that doesn't?
Because it lets you see how common or uncommon defederations are relative to the total set of all instances (or at least, all minus the long tail of very-low-user-count ones). And although it would make the graph larger, it would also make it sparse and IMO that would also be easier to read.
It could also give a misleading impression that all instances defederate or are defederated by somebody, making people think it's more common than it actually is. (Or maybe not doing that, if you include all^ish^ instances and it still ends up being not very sparse.)
I see your point I guess. Perhaps defederation is something that users want, and then they are happy to see who does it the most?
Im not like that myself, but I can see the point.