I think thats unlikely. If the fediverse wants it or not, its growth is now heavily dependent on Meta
Coder, Artist, Blogger (https://fungiverse.wordpress.com/, https://philpapers.org/archive/BINAKR.pdf), Admin of https://diagonlemmy.social
I think thats unlikely. If the fediverse wants it or not, its growth is now heavily dependent on Meta
Thanks for the explanation. Didn’t realize Bluesky/AT is more like a fedi-washed version of ActivityPub rather than a real alternative …
I’m not sure; on the one hand, I think the fact that federation has become a unique selling point in micro-blogging is indicating a positive trend; so even if people join Bluesky its good for the Fediverse. On the other hand, if federated just becomes another buzz word that means nothing at all, while places where the real innovation is happening are drowned out, the window of opportunity could just close.
I think its a cool idea. I had a similar idea once: https://fungiverse.wordpress.com/2024/07/27/floo-network-anouncement/ but for the whole social web instead of just Lemmy.
Its interesting, it could get overwhelming easily though. Maybe this could be solved by only showing instances of a certain size?
:D good one. My new favourite take on nostr.
Even if it doesnt have much impact on activitypub-fedi, I think this is good news for the fediverse in general. X is loosing more and more relevancy and microblogging is more and more happening on federating services.
Its less open, but its definitely federated. Whether its a walled garden or not depends on the definition ;)
I’m not sure something like this will be the killer app for the Fediverse.
I think its more a transition-app as long as we have protocol wars. Most people are good with having access to the majority of the Fediverse and probably dont even know about the others.
Its still a great idea!
Regarding 2: you can also join the Fediverse this way with certain clients I believe. You are automatically signed up for lemmy.world for example
Piefed has topics, so different fediverse communities can be viewed through the Fediverse-topic for example
It was an interesting read. I’m willing to do certain parts of that like listening more to marginalized voices. What bugs me though is that basically the text says that we need to disrupt the system, because its racist; but on the other hand, it basically assumes that the system was and always has been racist. And this is again identity politics: based on Focaults post structuralism; societal, liberal progress is a myth, etc. etc. There is no actual believe in societal progress (which I do believe in primarily through technological progress).
I think the topic of racism and discrimination needs to happen on the Fediverse if its an issue. However, I’m worrying that your approach is more counterprodctive. I think its fine to ask for proof for the supposed racist culture on Lemmy, because I think every argument needs to have some argumentative ground. I’m against discrimination (which certainly happens on the Fediverse), but I dont think identity politics have come up with productive tools to tackle the issues they point out.
Fair enough. I take it into account next time.
Thanks :)
Do you know how far the development is? (just curious)
They are following us because we‘re gaining traction. We‘re just going to stay ahead.
Agreed.
It’s fine. I guess we want to achieve the same thing but with different strategies. Let’s see what the future will bring.
Your wording shows that you‘re fully convinced that meta is some kind of deity.
Nope, just a company. I know that it has done some bad things. I just don’t think your strategy is effective.
We‘re not ignoring them, we‘re effectively boycotting them.
How can you effectively boycott something without social media? The Fediverse has ca. 2 million active users, Meta services have much more. If boycotting something means cutting yourself off from most of social media, nobody will notice and it won’t hurt Meta a bit. Its the #deletefacebook all over again.
Its a lucky guess. Enshitification happens in walled gardens because users cannot move to another service. In the Fediverse, I think this aggressive commercialization will not happen because users can just change to another server.
That’s great, but you are not alone in this world. You cannot just pretend like Meta doesn’t exist. Actually, it will be the most powerful instance in the Fediverse. Its a new reality the Fediverse finds itself in and you just want to opt out of it and carry on like before. I understand it, but I just don’t think it will work.
It’s less about the separation of powers and more about the fragmentation of each power. As in, you should be able to ditch any governing power that you dislike, and curb down its influence on your experience to a bare minimum.
I said separation of powers because you said the Fediverse should be like a democracy. Then it should have that. For me, democracy is first of all a better way to control those in power, which is why I think we shouldn’t think of the Fediverse as a democracy, because it isn’t; at least not currently. It’s not like you have a say in the general development of the Fediverse, because there is no real centre to it anyways.
So, I agree with you here, I just don’t think that’s what a democracy is. If the Fediverse would be a democracy, it would have government, a constitution, etc.
But as I said, I agree with you how we should think of the Fediverse: as acephalous. However, why should it be completely acephalous? Why shouldn’t servers make agreements with one another? The Fedipact is one of those, the badspace, too. And while I’m not a fan of the first one, its generally fine, if they don’t force people into it (like you said). Why then not try to do the same thing but with some actual principles?
What happens if said commitee becomes hostile, defending its own self-interests in detriment of the ones of the rest of the Fediverse?
Then many servers will opt out of it and it will become irrelevant. That’s the beauty of it. Because its only an agreement that is not controlled by any centrlized entity, its not as binding. The same as with the Fedipact: it wasn’t set up by any central entity and will not be enforced by it other than the community or powerful servers. But that the community and powerful servers will try to influence the course of the Fediverse is the the case anyways!
And the ones screwing up on moral matters get isolated.
For Nazi-instances, that’s easy, but for example in the case of Threads, it quickly becomes very complicated to agree on which instances should be isolated and which not. How do you determine that if not through speaking to other servers? And if you do that, you can just as well speak to them about common rights and write them down somewhere. It’s the same thing but with more transparency.
We cannot build the Fediverse without trust and mutual agreements. It will just not work; and we are also already doing it.
Well written, interesting article.
Really getting momentum from Reddit will be tough though. Our main advantage is that we have the rest of the Fediverse as a potential user base, and existing forum apps that also activate apub; reducing network effects. If the Fediverse has momentum, so has the threadiverse.