also don't block other instances too much! I mean as long as they are bot servers that threaten the health of the network, then you have to get rid of them of course. but way too many people are getting their panties in a bunch about content they don't like, and immediately resort to the nuclear option of defederation, which is actually hurting the network and effectively splitting the user base. all these things should be blocked on a user level (by blocking specific communities, not whole instances!).
this post was submitted on 01 Jul 2023
369 points (97.7% liked)
Reddit Was Fun
6536 readers
1 users here now
Memorial to "rif is fun for Reddit" Android app, aka "reddit is fun", shut down after June 30, 2023
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
There are unfortunately not enough people that hold this opinion, too many are trigger happy on defederating from those they don't like.
Like you say, there can be some legitimate reasons, such as bot servers, and I would add if a big company created an instance to take it over and kill the federation.
But too many simply do it because they disagree with what the people in an instance are saying, and that hurts the federated nature of the fediverse.
I’m having trouble seeing the purpose of the federation system if not to cater what people see, to one degree or another. After seeing soft nazi rhetoric spread through years worth of complacency, the argument of “don’t get too banhappy, fellas, all ideas are worth considering” really doesn’t strike me as wise.
When there's an instance that doesn't want to play well with others, it's up to others to take action.
Generally, I agree, but sometimes it's going to happen. See also the great IRC split, and countless other networks prior that mostly no longer exist.
Unsure how distributed federated services prevents the reddit downfall, aside from corporate greed. Which can also be solved through legally binding agreements/foundation-controlled companies. Among many other solutions that can avoid funding, stability, and consistency issued federated services have and will continue to have.
It's all a tradeoff. To tradeoff corporate greed you now have community fragmentation and fragility risks as any instance can be taken down whenever, and any unhappy user that created communities can solely kill them off (As stated by some users threatening to do so in another thread).
What you should be talking about is how do you mitigate these tradeoffs. What should others do to make the fediverse more successful? If you want it to be successful than talking about these hard problems in a semi-flenal way is required.
#2 sounds good to say, but barely works in practice when you're talking about infrastructure costs in the tens of millions of $ per year for something at scale...
Essentially saying nice things that don't effectively translate into reality doesn't solve problems. It just perpetuates a lack of critical thinking.
OK good point but think about your tone dude! You're coming across like you think we are stupid and I'll offer the benefit of the doubt that you don't intend that side effect.
My tone is such that it addresses the nativity of posts like this. Especially when said nativity pushed for potentially counterproductive or harmful mindsets that prevent real solutions from being discovered.
Nativity must be addressed if hard problems are to be solved. It's a baseline.
A small slice of users are going to understand broader technological, community, funding, and survivability nuances. As such these should be explained so we're not simply hand waving necessary complexity away. Encouraging deeper discussion from others who would otherwise pass posts like these up because of the low quality.
It's the difference between talking about niceties, vs actually working towards solutions. These are hard problems, and should be recognized as hard otherwise they go unsolved.
The more readers know about the rest of the iceberg the better. The more knowledgeable folks you attract to a discussion by encouraging critical thinking the better.
I don't disagree with your analysis. I just think your tone is counter-productive. Good luck getting your message across.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Second option is difficult because there are too many instances. It is difficult to make good use of the funds as the popular instances will eventually enjoy too much profit whilst the smaller instances will be forced to shutdown due to lack of funds. This will lessen the decentralisation overtime.
The solution is a central service, something like Lemmy Fund Management or something, which regulates the funds accordingly. The managers will be selected by voting system (democracy). There are other solutions as well.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Unsure how distributed federated services prevents the reddit downfall, aside from corporate greed. Which can also be solved through legally binding agreements/foundation-controlled companies. Among many other solutions.
It's all a tradeoff. To tradeoff corporate greed you now have community fragmentation and fragility risks as any instance can be taken down whenever, and any unhappy user that created communities can solely kill them off (As stated by some users threatening to do so in another thread)
#2 sounds good to say, but barely works in practice when you're talking about infrastructure costs in the tens of millions of $ per year for something at scale...
Essentially saying nice things that don't effectively translate into reality doesn't solve problems. It just perpetuates a lack of critical thinking.