Perhaps a totally fair critique.
But for me the instance node in the Fedi binds many things together however much their governance aims to be democratic: username, platform, defed policies, moderation, user data (ie posts).
maegul
joined 2 years ago
Yea this is the essence of the idea. Strip down the interop requirements as much as possible, relying on existing tech as much as possible, and allow software and norms to solve all the other problems, where, TBF, it seems that software is doing all the heavy lifting in the fediverse anyway, but also has to handle federation and the protocol.
Yea for sure. I’m not enough of YouTuber to use an account and comment though.
Plus I get the feeling that the astrophysics community kinda bounced off of the fediverse. But definitely worth a try.
@Aatube @1984 @mindlight @[email protected]
The key idea is that you can have a single unified identity on all the platforms you want. Signing into multiple platforms doesn’t require a new account every time. And cross posting from one platform to another, under your single identity is easy from every platform.
Then leveraging those features (and an open API), a good unifying client will make that easy.
There must be a way of doing that without fatal security issues or decentralisation.
@Aatube @1984 @mindlight @[email protected]
Yea I don’t know the best approach to that. Either a separate server for managing IDs. Or you always a principal server that manages authentication for its platform and others within the trusted “circle”. And then, should the principal server fail, you can switch to another server as your principal. Hubzilla/Streams has some process like that AFAIK.
Quick attempt at coming up with an alternative.
Something to bear in mind here is it’s my impression that federation creates difficulties that many struggle with. So while it might be over simplified, the scale for me is already weighed with the possibility that we over complication that may need to be remedied.
Also, that big instances (eg mastodon.social) seem to be a natural thing even on the Fedi, there’s clearly perceived value for many there.
All of the shared/single sign on and easy cross posting would probably be trust or allow-list based.
As the platforms would be FOSS, anyone could run their own instance and start their own "circles of trust". So even with big vs small server friction, there could be a few "gardens" of small and big server networks providing different "spaces" for different purposes ... all without having to worry about defederation and the software difficulties of building against the protocol.
So so sorry to hear.
Otherwise, yea this doesn't sound surprising. From my recent limited experience it seems like a system held together with duck tape.
Which is funny, because if the fear from govt is to prevent people from becoming professional "dole-bludgers", making the system so hard to use that it requires special skills and experience is the wrong thing to do.
I'm sure there are all sorts of silly loop holes and bugs that plenty of people have learnt to exploit.
Yea. Generally a good demonstration of how the promise of the fediverse isn’t really there yet.
Lemmy does groups and mastodon does users with neither really understanding the other.
I think there’s more scope for lemmy to cover the user side of social media than mastodon the groups side. Kbin is an example of a continuing effort to do that.
If some keen devs got involved, I’d suspect lemmy could add some good user based functionality.The core devs have recognised it’d be good.
@ada
Interesting! Cool to know that the actual number is higher than 7%.
In the end though how likely are Threads/Meta to *not* have hategroups?
Would it be a good idea to have a more accurate (and therefore higher) number on how many Threads defeds there are?