@andybalaam @learningrustandlemmy
This is an inception level of fediverse layers … I’m just rolling with it!
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.
Ha. That’s not what’s going on here.
The suspicion here is more along the lines of whether tech people can be trusted to make good things especially when some special tech idea is at the core. What are the chances that tech people just really like the idea of decentralised federated social media and haven’t really thought through whether it works well at scale?
If they had, there’d be documented analysis of this rather than just advocacy.
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.
It's probably (very) naive of me, but I hadn't quite thought that the whole thing is a grift against everyone.
Ads, data tracking, *and* tricking you into ignoring the economy/industry that actually matters in the name of "evolution" and "breaking things".
Can't help but see some (stretched) resonance with the #fediverse. Is this just some tech idea that needs to convince all of us that it's the good new thing? What if at its core there's something wrong and it fails us?
@poVoq
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).