Improving the Fediverse to allow it to actually take over the social media space.
-
Decentralization is obviously the big thing about the Fediverse but is it TOO decentralized to gain traction?
There is no reason why they have to be fully separate domains in the same branch. You can set up a system of fully independent moderation and extreme levels of customization while having them all on one site with a front page that allows everyone to see whats popular.
A front page wouldn't prevent individual subgroups from requiring approval to join, it wouldn't prevent subgroups from banning those it doesn't want. It doesn't prevent users from blocking subgroups that it doesn't want to see on the front page.
What would be most useful is that now someone could create an account on the Reddit, Twitter, Facebook(?) alternatives and give them access to every community, and then allow each community to set its own rules, and customize its own to be unique while having a unified product to "sell" and get people to move.
Hot take? Blue Sky should be worked with to join the Fediverse as the twitter alternative and Mastodon should work to be the Facebook alternative
TLDR: One front page and general site for Lemmy, Mastodon....and to sign up and see whats popular and then have fully independent subgroups.
-
System shared this topic
-
Decentralization is obviously the big thing about the Fediverse but is it TOO decentralized to gain traction?
There is no reason why they have to be fully separate domains in the same branch. You can set up a system of fully independent moderation and extreme levels of customization while having them all on one site with a front page that allows everyone to see whats popular.
A front page wouldn't prevent individual subgroups from requiring approval to join, it wouldn't prevent subgroups from banning those it doesn't want. It doesn't prevent users from blocking subgroups that it doesn't want to see on the front page.
What would be most useful is that now someone could create an account on the Reddit, Twitter, Facebook(?) alternatives and give them access to every community, and then allow each community to set its own rules, and customize its own to be unique while having a unified product to "sell" and get people to move.
Hot take? Blue Sky should be worked with to join the Fediverse as the twitter alternative and Mastodon should work to be the Facebook alternative
TLDR: One front page and general site for Lemmy, Mastodon....and to sign up and see whats popular and then have fully independent subgroups.
Google Chat or whatever uses to be federated via XMPP, but then they slowly started making incompatibility changes. Due to it being such a dominant chatting service, the real federated versions died out.
Basically I'm saying it's not worth it. If you want to support Threads or Blue Sky as a central front page to the Fediverse then go for it, but they don't actually need your support.
-
Decentralization is obviously the big thing about the Fediverse but is it TOO decentralized to gain traction?
There is no reason why they have to be fully separate domains in the same branch. You can set up a system of fully independent moderation and extreme levels of customization while having them all on one site with a front page that allows everyone to see whats popular.
A front page wouldn't prevent individual subgroups from requiring approval to join, it wouldn't prevent subgroups from banning those it doesn't want. It doesn't prevent users from blocking subgroups that it doesn't want to see on the front page.
What would be most useful is that now someone could create an account on the Reddit, Twitter, Facebook(?) alternatives and give them access to every community, and then allow each community to set its own rules, and customize its own to be unique while having a unified product to "sell" and get people to move.
Hot take? Blue Sky should be worked with to join the Fediverse as the twitter alternative and Mastodon should work to be the Facebook alternative
TLDR: One front page and general site for Lemmy, Mastodon....and to sign up and see whats popular and then have fully independent subgroups.
IMO, it isn't decentralized enough. The federated model is better than centralized corporate services, of course, but it still suffers many of the same pitfalls in microcosm. We need private, encrypted friend-to-friend connections that enable friend-of-a-friend onion routing to those outside one's personal social circle to effectively mimic how real human social networks actually work. The only middlemen we need are the friends we made along the way.
-
Decentralization is obviously the big thing about the Fediverse but is it TOO decentralized to gain traction?
There is no reason why they have to be fully separate domains in the same branch. You can set up a system of fully independent moderation and extreme levels of customization while having them all on one site with a front page that allows everyone to see whats popular.
A front page wouldn't prevent individual subgroups from requiring approval to join, it wouldn't prevent subgroups from banning those it doesn't want. It doesn't prevent users from blocking subgroups that it doesn't want to see on the front page.
What would be most useful is that now someone could create an account on the Reddit, Twitter, Facebook(?) alternatives and give them access to every community, and then allow each community to set its own rules, and customize its own to be unique while having a unified product to "sell" and get people to move.
Hot take? Blue Sky should be worked with to join the Fediverse as the twitter alternative and Mastodon should work to be the Facebook alternative
TLDR: One front page and general site for Lemmy, Mastodon....and to sign up and see whats popular and then have fully independent subgroups.
But who would control this front page?
-
Decentralization is obviously the big thing about the Fediverse but is it TOO decentralized to gain traction?
There is no reason why they have to be fully separate domains in the same branch. You can set up a system of fully independent moderation and extreme levels of customization while having them all on one site with a front page that allows everyone to see whats popular.
A front page wouldn't prevent individual subgroups from requiring approval to join, it wouldn't prevent subgroups from banning those it doesn't want. It doesn't prevent users from blocking subgroups that it doesn't want to see on the front page.
What would be most useful is that now someone could create an account on the Reddit, Twitter, Facebook(?) alternatives and give them access to every community, and then allow each community to set its own rules, and customize its own to be unique while having a unified product to "sell" and get people to move.
Hot take? Blue Sky should be worked with to join the Fediverse as the twitter alternative and Mastodon should work to be the Facebook alternative
TLDR: One front page and general site for Lemmy, Mastodon....and to sign up and see whats popular and then have fully independent subgroups.
Why on Earth would you want it to take over the social media space? Have you not seen what those places are like?
-
But who would control this front page?
A group of people who would all need to agree before action, a mini government of sorts, maybe elected idk but its the only way to gain a real foothold. The people running it are only supposed to act if illegal activity is going on and they are contacted by authorities in the appropriate jurisdiction.
-
Decentralization is obviously the big thing about the Fediverse but is it TOO decentralized to gain traction?
There is no reason why they have to be fully separate domains in the same branch. You can set up a system of fully independent moderation and extreme levels of customization while having them all on one site with a front page that allows everyone to see whats popular.
A front page wouldn't prevent individual subgroups from requiring approval to join, it wouldn't prevent subgroups from banning those it doesn't want. It doesn't prevent users from blocking subgroups that it doesn't want to see on the front page.
What would be most useful is that now someone could create an account on the Reddit, Twitter, Facebook(?) alternatives and give them access to every community, and then allow each community to set its own rules, and customize its own to be unique while having a unified product to "sell" and get people to move.
Hot take? Blue Sky should be worked with to join the Fediverse as the twitter alternative and Mastodon should work to be the Facebook alternative
TLDR: One front page and general site for Lemmy, Mastodon....and to sign up and see whats popular and then have fully independent subgroups.
I kinda like the fediverse as is. We keep slowly growing our services. We don't need to be social media.
We can be social sure but without the need to be ever growing. I would rather us concentrate on the people and giving us power rather than huge orgs that are going to do huge org things.
-
IMO, it isn't decentralized enough. The federated model is better than centralized corporate services, of course, but it still suffers many of the same pitfalls in microcosm. We need private, encrypted friend-to-friend connections that enable friend-of-a-friend onion routing to those outside one's personal social circle to effectively mimic how real human social networks actually work. The only middlemen we need are the friends we made along the way.
From my perspective, that's not something I'd use, or at least, it wouldn't have been much use to me when I was a young closeted queer person in small town Australia. It wouln't have been much help finding my peers
-
From my perspective, that's not something I'd use, or at least, it wouldn't have been much use to me when I was a young closeted queer person in small town Australia. It wouln't have been much help finding my peers
It could have been, there's nothing preventing such a network from providing a degree of anonymity by leaving your signature out of a post and adding a few increments to the distance on its onion route to obfuscate the source.
And in any case, you'd only need to make one remote friend to reach an entirely different segment of the network.
-
I kinda like the fediverse as is. We keep slowly growing our services. We don't need to be social media.
We can be social sure but without the need to be ever growing. I would rather us concentrate on the people and giving us power rather than huge orgs that are going to do huge org things.
I just like that it's smaller. Like, you can actually have conversations (or slapfights :sigh:) and can actually recognize people. Kind of like something bigger than a small town but smaller than a huge city.
I'm not opposed to growth, and it would definitely be a good thing in the long run, but I like that it's not just shouting into the void here.
-
A group of people who would all need to agree before action, a mini government of sorts, maybe elected idk but its the only way to gain a real foothold. The people running it are only supposed to act if illegal activity is going on and they are contacted by authorities in the appropriate jurisdiction.
The people running it are only supposed to act if illegal activity is going on and they are contacted by authorities in the appropriate jurisdiction.
which is the "appropriate" jurisdiction?
what if it's legal in my country, but it is illegal in the country where the server is? I have no other choice of server, you're taking away our ability to join servers in our own countries
-
Decentralization is obviously the big thing about the Fediverse but is it TOO decentralized to gain traction?
There is no reason why they have to be fully separate domains in the same branch. You can set up a system of fully independent moderation and extreme levels of customization while having them all on one site with a front page that allows everyone to see whats popular.
A front page wouldn't prevent individual subgroups from requiring approval to join, it wouldn't prevent subgroups from banning those it doesn't want. It doesn't prevent users from blocking subgroups that it doesn't want to see on the front page.
What would be most useful is that now someone could create an account on the Reddit, Twitter, Facebook(?) alternatives and give them access to every community, and then allow each community to set its own rules, and customize its own to be unique while having a unified product to "sell" and get people to move.
Hot take? Blue Sky should be worked with to join the Fediverse as the twitter alternative and Mastodon should work to be the Facebook alternative
TLDR: One front page and general site for Lemmy, Mastodon....and to sign up and see whats popular and then have fully independent subgroups.
Then make the "one true frontpage" for Lemmy or whatever (implement ActivityPub, maybe borrowing some code from the Lemmy codebase itself, or kindof making a fork of Lemmy), and if it's good, it'll be used. If not, it won't.
But then, it might well fall victim to this phenomenon:
Lemmy has lots of competing "front pages." How will one more change anything? A more generic domain name or something?
-
The people running it are only supposed to act if illegal activity is going on and they are contacted by authorities in the appropriate jurisdiction.
which is the "appropriate" jurisdiction?
what if it's legal in my country, but it is illegal in the country where the server is? I have no other choice of server, you're taking away our ability to join servers in our own countries
Ideally it would be hosted in the EU and thus only things illegal there would be enforced.
-
Ideally it would be hosted in the EU and thus only things illegal there would be enforced.
Which EU country? Whose to say that's the ideal? That sounds biased. Also the "ideal" (if there is such a thing) could change over time with global politics.
-
IMO, it isn't decentralized enough. The federated model is better than centralized corporate services, of course, but it still suffers many of the same pitfalls in microcosm. We need private, encrypted friend-to-friend connections that enable friend-of-a-friend onion routing to those outside one's personal social circle to effectively mimic how real human social networks actually work. The only middlemen we need are the friends we made along the way.
If you can stomach bitcoin bros, check out Nostr, it works more like this.
-
If you can stomach bitcoin bros, check out Nostr, it works more like this.
I cannot, and they can't stand me either because I've deleted more bitcoin than most of them will ever see and I've personally killed about $5million in crypto scams before they could pull out the rug. XD
-
Ideally it would be hosted in the EU and thus only things illegal there would be enforced.
Still too problematic, as what is legal and not in the EU depends on the trendy neo-nazi party du jour. Check Germany, for one, where apparently showing any disapproval of Israel gets you Gestapo'd, or that's what Lemmy administrators in Europe seem to fear. Or Italy / Spain, where any attempt to liberate sports transmissions gets half the internet shut down.
Oh, did I even mention Turkiye?
Honestly, I've always been of the opinion that projects that are intended to be truly international need to build up to some sort of "all humanity" jurisdiction or international waters jurisdiction. Since it's not like the UN is going to provide any sort of aid here.
-
Still too problematic, as what is legal and not in the EU depends on the trendy neo-nazi party du jour. Check Germany, for one, where apparently showing any disapproval of Israel gets you Gestapo'd, or that's what Lemmy administrators in Europe seem to fear. Or Italy / Spain, where any attempt to liberate sports transmissions gets half the internet shut down.
Oh, did I even mention Turkiye?
Honestly, I've always been of the opinion that projects that are intended to be truly international need to build up to some sort of "all humanity" jurisdiction or international waters jurisdiction. Since it's not like the UN is going to provide any sort of aid here.
Switzerland is probably the country most likely to leave everyone alone lol. Because they're a direct democracy and extremely decentralized. Plus internationally neutral.
-
Switzerland is probably the country most likely to leave everyone alone lol. Because they're a direct democracy and extremely decentralized. Plus internationally neutral.
Which further emphasizes the question. If things are bad enough in Switzerland that you have to consider leaving, where to?
-
Which further emphasizes the question. If things are bad enough in Switzerland that you have to consider leaving, where to?
It won't get bad there it's the richest country and has direct democracy, CHF 5,430 post tax median salary. There's nothing for an authoritarian party to say to convince voters who are the wealthier people (actual citizens) of Switzerland
Also the average assets for adults is over $800K they're too rich to fall to power hungry parties
