This isn’t centralization, it’s duplication.
Comment on The Fediverse Passport: A needed tool.
WatDabney@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 month ago
Decentralization is a feature - not a bug.
Ulrich@feddit.org 1 month ago
WatDabney@piefed.social 1 month ago
You can't have a full round robin of duplication. In order to have duplicates, you have to have one central original, of which all the rest are duplicates.
And that's exactly the sort of thing the fediverse is intended to avoid.
Every instance is federated but ultimately separate. The accounts on those separate instances are necessarily also separate. There is no possible scheme by which those necessarily separate accounts can be consolidated that does not involve, at some point, some central authority to implement it and/or manage it.
Ulrich@feddit.org 1 month ago
And that’s exactly the sort of thing the fediverse is intended to avoid.
It’s not. Your passport account would be portable, just like any other account. I really don’t see what the problem is.
ada@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 month ago
A passport in the way described here doesn't need to be centralised. Your profile could link to your other profiles through metadata, rather than a centralised system.
WatDabney@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 month ago
And further - the establishment of a single, fediverse-wide account for each user would make it far too easy for those so inclined to silence anyone they wanted merely by banning their one and only account.
Sackeshi@lemmy.world 1 month ago
It could have several even as many as 100 different people with part of the key to access the center point for the passports so that any decisions would have to be unanimous and would keep things purely being monitored for technological updates.
WatDabney@piefed.social 1 month ago
Centralization under 100 people is still centralization.
The key to the fediverse is that there is NO central authority. Not a purportedly limited or constrained or distributed one but none at all, in any way, shape or form.
And we want to keep it that way.
WatDabney@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 month ago
It’s not a matter of how ones profile would be accessed, but how it would be created in the first place snd how it would be managed.
Necessarily, those who implement the creation of accounts have control over how they’re created, who is allowed to create them and how they will be handled after creation.
Any scheme to establish one “central” (your own term) account for the entire fediverse will necessarily be managed by one “central” service, which means one “central” authority over account creation and management
ada@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 month ago
I'm not the OP.
And no, a central account doesn't require a central service, it just requires amendments to the protocols to allow for a decentralised identity. Nostr, bluesky, etc all work that way. Nostr is full of nazis and bitcoin bros, and bluesky is effectively centralised in other ways, but both of them do have a genuinely decentralised single identity system.
There are a few ways of doing it. A single account on the first platform, and then signing up to remote platforms with that account. A system of trust that allows a user to verify that other remote accounts are genuinely also them. Combine it with platforms that recognise content posted from other accounts/platforms that belong to the same person, and let them edit the "remote" content locally and federate it out again etc.
So you don't end up with a centralised identity, but rather, the ability to manage your identity from whichever instance you happen to be signed in to as if it were created locally on that instance.
WatDabney@piefed.social 1 month ago
Ah... yes. You're not the OP. You're the one pushing a platform with built in subscription gatekeeping and a raft of reputational anti-features.
Figures.