Notices by :abunhdhappyhop: :abunhdhappy: :abunhdhop: :abunhd: :abunhdhappyhop: :abunhdhappy: (kaniini@pleroma.site), page 42

anyway, last thing I want to say about MRF Transparency Exclusions is, I personally believe it’s a misfeature.

incidentally, many of the other things I implement on request from other people/groups I also believe are misfeatures.

with that said, the transparency community has the current view that partial transparency is still better than zero transparency. maybe this is the wrong view, but that’s the current view.

(also the “transparency cabal” is not a pleroma group, it’s a multi-stakeholder group, so dropping in a pleroma IRC channel demanding answers from the “transparency cabal” is just going to make you look ridiculous.)

and the reason why is because the transparency data is intended to be used in tasks like instance recommendations (“i want to see an instance that can federate with pleroma.site” as an example user story).

in a recommendation engine, partial transparency is fine, as long as the data is weighted appropriately: full data gets weighted over partial data, and both get weighted over data which shows that the target instance is blocked.

voila, you get recommendations that most likely can federate with the instances you care about.

and this is the real purpose of transparency: solving the onboarding problem.