Fediverse

28248 readers

135 users here now

A community to talk about the Fediverse and all it's related services using ActivityPub (Mastodon, Lemmy, KBin, etc).

If you wanted to get help with moderating your own community then head over to [email protected]!

Rules

Posts must be on topic.
Be respectful of others.
Cite the sources used for graphs and other statistics.
Follow the general Lemmy.world rules.

Learn more at these websites: Join The Fediverse Wiki, Fediverse.info, Wikipedia Page, The Federation Info (Stats), FediDB (Stats), Sub Rehab (Reddit Migration), Search Lemmy

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

Wouldn't the fediverse work better if it was like a drive array rather than independent communities on independent servers? (lemmy.world)

submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

21 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I get the impression that we're headed for the same issues that pop up when we put all our eggs in one basket with Reddit/FB/whatever. People flock to the largest instance, and someday that instance could go down due to cost or the host losing interest.

I'm wondering whether it would be technically achievable to have servers/instances and federation where the communities are essentially mirrored or have broadly distributed existence - maybe even with user storage a la torrents.

If there's a large [email protected] community and a small [email protected] community, all of the discussion, images, contributions to lemmy.here die if the server goes down for good. Yes, the users can relocate to lemmmy.there - even under the same community name - but it's not the same as having full continuity of a completely mirrored community.

I realize this concept has technical hurdles and would involve a reimagining of how the fediverse works, but I worry we're just setting up for another blowup at some TBD date when individual sysadmins decide they've had enough. If it's not truly distributed and just functions as a series of interconnected fiefdoms, communities and their information won't survive outages, deaths, and power struggles.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago

I agree with OP that instances being closed any time is an issue that would need to be resolved fairly soon.

A new user currently has a choice for joining from a number of instances but there is no assurance to ongoing existence for them. Along with that, there is no way to transfer user accounts and data across instances, afaik. Having the option to transfer user accounts would help with the instance closing and eventually make the fediverse more stable.

If a user can transfer their accounts and data, there will be less hesitancy to join a new instance, and user accounts and data can be distributed across more instances. This can also work in such a way that if a subset of user data does not meet the criteria for another instance, then that subset of data is not migrated.

Another issue is with the presence of same community/magazine in multiple instances (let’s say [email protected] and [email protected]) which is frustrating for users since they need to track multiple communities for similar content and the same content is being copied to multiple communities. This should also be resolved by implementing account migration. We are already seeing that communities on certain instances are becoming the prevalent ones. This creates an incentive for the admin of those instances to not shut down. And if they did decide to shut down the instance, then the users can just migrate to another instance and the prevalent community will also get to keep all its data, just in the new instance.