Comment on We should have something like federated communities

• 9point6@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  The problem with this was given by one of the lemmy devs—imagine @news on a tech focused instance and @news on a star trek focused instance, they are not going to have any crossover of content as they’re effectively entirely different communities.

  Similar would happen with local language differences like @football or @chips on an American vs a British instance

  source

  • Dave@lemmy.nz ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    No, this is completely solved by my suggestion.

    I 100% agree that we shouldn’t push communities together. Instead, give the option for a community to nominate other communities where the content should be aggregated into the community.

    Add an option as to whether the mods of those remote communities also get mod powers on the local community.

    Behind the scenes, keep everything separate, but when generating the list of posts, aggregate posts across any listed community.

    source

    • 9point6@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      I guess that would mitigate most issues if that’s possible within the activitypub protocol.

      Though I wouldn’t be surprised if that kind of mutually approved relationship between non-people doesn’t exist as a concept out of the box. Possibly using the hashtag concept under the hood to do this, but that would not require the mutual approval in the rest of the fediverse even if Lemmy enforced it

      source

      • Dave@lemmy.nz ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        I think there are less hurdles than you’d think. Having content from another community served up when the feed is requested for the local community is a server feature not a federation feature. Moderators are the hard part, but in version one you don’t need their powers to be federated.

        It’s the kind of thing you kinda have to just start trying (in a fork, say), then work out the kinks before putting the functionality into Lemmy. However, there are a lot more pressing issues at the moment, so it’s probably something better left for down the line.

        source
• serialized_kirin@kbin.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  i can't decide if a one-way-moderation-scheme-type-thingy like that is beautifully simple solution, or one fraught with annoying hidden complications lol that's a sick idea.

  source

  • Dave@lemmy.nz ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    I think it would work if you didn’t overcomplicate it.

    source
• OldWoodFrame@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  I don’t know that one-way solves the problem…you could “Absorb content” with an overzealous user or a bot. It wouldn’t subscribe the .world and .ml users to the same community.

  Ideally you want someone to be able to subscribe to !technology@all or something.

  source

  • Dave@lemmy.nz ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    It would be a frontend thing. Track separate communities behind the scenes but show them together in the frontend if the community settings tell you to.

    !technology@all

    I guess the problem here is there is no central server. Different instances know about different communities. You could have an instance side setting to show all communities with the same name together. However, this messes up location based communities (!politics!politics@lemmy.nz is for New Zealand politics, and merging with !politics@lemmy.world would be a bad idea). It would also mean the control is taken away from thw community itself. Doing it in that way would make moderation complicated.

    I think having the ability for a community to opt to join with others is a better idea, though I admit I don’t know all the implementation details.

    source