I don’t want to share an instance with the nutballs on the tankie instance or the nutballs on the fascist instance.
Comment on Welp that answers a lot of why all .ml are down
LordShrek@lemmy.world 1 year ago
this is why instances should be abstracted away as underlying infrastructure and the users don’t have to think about “instances”. accounts and communities are replicated across servers.
weirdwallace75@lemmy.world 1 year ago
LordShrek@lemmy.world 1 year ago
to expound:
the tankie instance or the nutballs on the fascist instance
here you reveal a conceptual misunderstanding, or rather, a part of the lemmy architecture which i disagree with. there shouldn’t be a concept of a “interest X instance” etc. it should be similar to a distributed storage model. so the concept of a community is not per-instance, it’s just an abstract thing that exists in conceptual space.
LordShrek@lemmy.world 1 year ago
you already share water with them though. how is this any different? more seriously though, you already share internet infrastructure with them. the packets you just sent to make that comment could have been sandwiched between a “tankie” and a “fascist nutball”. that’s just the way it is man, there have always been crazy humans.
nefonous@lemmy.world 1 year ago
There are a few technical problems with that. First of all, the cost of each instance would become quickly unbearable since everyone has all the duplicated data.
Second problem, a malign entity could just come, create its own instance, spam everything and everyone with ads or whatever and suddenly every instance is full of that stuff. Also, how do you handle defederating in that case?
What has been proposed before instead was to make some kind of mega communities that gather all posts from communities with the same name across instances
LordShrek@lemmy.world 1 year ago
everyone has all the duplicated data. everyone does not have all the duplicated data. they only have the data that they need – the data user who happened to have been routed through that instance have requested. this solves the problem of your second point.
handling defederating is a good point. there could be malicious nodes that would be damaging to the network. i suppose there could be a community-mainted ledger of known malicious nodes (similar to minecraft usernames of known hackers), and the admins of the servers would maintain a blacklist. (obviously you configure that your instance’s blacklist would be automatically synced with this ledger)
the mega community idea could be good. where is this being discussed?
amenji@lemm.ee 1 year ago
This was my thought as well. Before learning more about the fediverse, I thought things are distributed and are replicated across servers (much like how distributed storage and computing works). But apparently they’re not. You still have to choose which instance you want to use as your “home”, and your data and your contents stays in your home. Others get to look at your profile and contents thanks to ActivityPub.
I understand the needs for multiple instances (i.e., preferences for moderating concents, governance, etc.) But shouldn’t the users and the user generated contents (arguably fediverse’s valuable resources) should be safe-guarded by having redundancies in place across multiple instances?
Has there any work or effort on this?
LordShrek@lemmy.world 1 year ago
I thought things are distributed and are replicated across servers (much like how distributed storage and computing works) yes, exactly! when you use the internet, you don’t manually choose which ISPs to route through. you can pick which DNS servers to use but you don’t have to. when you use youtube, netflix, or facebook, you don’t choose which CDNs to use.
shrugal@lemmy.world 1 year ago
This is not the solution! Being able to pick a server to trust your data and content moderation with is a feature, not a bug.
What we do have to do is make this feature more resilient and easier to use. Like adding the ability to easily transfer accounts and communities between instances, or even change the domain name of an entire instance.
LordShrek@lemmy.world 1 year ago
no, you’re misunderstanding. that shouldn’t be how it works. there shouldn’t be any difference between the software on each instance such that it make your data insecure. this is how bitcoin works. this is why anyone can spin up a bitcoin instance and have it start contributing to the bitcoin blockchain and you as a user don’t have to “trust” that particular node. trust is built into the distributed software architecture. you don’t “choose” a set of bitcoin nodes. you don’t “choose” a number of CDN or DNS servers.
shrugal@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Cryptocurrencies and social platforms are a completely different beasts. In crypto I want no moderation/censorship, I want anonymity, and above all there is a payout system so nodes can compete for something. This is all different when building a social network, so you can’t just use the same architecture. Building social structures and trust is desirable in a public forum, not something you want to get rid off.