this post was submitted on 09 Jun 2023
341 points (99.7% liked)
Lemmy
12535 readers
1 users here now
Everything about Lemmy; bugs, gripes, praises, and advocacy.
For discussion about the lemmy.ml instance, go to [email protected].
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I personally belief that regional instances are the way to go.
And at some point we also gotta think about how to organize the instances...legally, financially and technically. For now I'm really happy at how the instance I'm on is run. But to be fair. I have no clue who is running it. I have no clue wether I'm going to agree with future decisions. I don't even know if it will be around next week. Maybe the owner just decides he has more important things in life to do (which is fair tbh).
The model that lemmy is based on gives us all the tools to organize instances however we want to. I really want to see community owned instances. Here in Germany social non profit clubs are a thing. You can officially register them and there are laws, regulations that protect them from just being taken over. They have boards that get elected by the members on a regular basis. I think that could be a great model on how to run an instance that is truly owned by its members.
I'm sure there are similar models of organization in other countries too.
I think a barrier to wide-spread adoption of lemmy is that for a regular joe, the instance system is a bit confusing. I'm seeing a lot of people comparing the instances to email servers, but I think something they're missing is that there are a few large email providers which most people default to (e.g. gmail, yahoo, etc.) and a bunch of smaller ones which people go to if they disagree with the policies of the larger ones (e.g. protonmail)
I think that if lemmy is to replace reddit as the most widely-used link aggregator, we need some kind of default server (or set of default servers) which is large enough that people feel comfortable with settling in on. That way user base growth isn't hindered by confusion. If they later decide that a smaller instance suits their needs better (whether that be the moderation practices or site reliability), they can uproot and move their account there.
In regards to email; the reason people use one of the large providers is that the large providers have taken malicious and aggressive steps to break the ability of smaller providers to talk to them, in the name of "security".
It's not a 'natural state of being' : up until relatively recently you could easily run your own email server (and most businesses and huge numbers of people actually did), but it's been co-opted and broken very thoroughly by Google and Microsoft to their benefit.
With the Fediverse, you probably don't actually want giant servers, as you're just repeating the concentration of users and thus power in the network into a smaller, fewer set of hands.
I'm of the opinion that it's ok and natural for a few larger servers to emerge. The reason why I think it's natural is because normal people frankly don't care about the nuanced benefits about finding an instance that caters to their exact moderation preferences or philosophical pontifications about why Big Tech is bad. They just want to click on funny images, upvote them, and maybe comment once in a while.
I think that's ok since I believe the ultimate goal of social media sites is to serve content for users' consumption in a non-abusive way. The reason why I believe the fediverse is probably better than traditional social media is because it gives the power of choice. That power doesn't need to be executed, but because it's baked into the platform the users always have the ability to exercise it. If a large instance decides to screw over its users, then the users can simply move to another instance and still have full access to the network's content. That power alone is what makes me ok with having few large instances.
I think the differing view here is 'natural growth' vs 'forced growth'.
I don't think large servers that come by being large because they're the preferred choice for a given community, topic, reliability, or whatever other criteria become valuable are bad.
I think setting it up so that a new user is told 'You go here, and you sign up on this instance.' and writing all the onboarding stuff to direct them to the mega-instance for the sake of convenience because we can't figure out how to make it simpler or more clear or explain how federation works isn't the right path.
I will admit I do not have a fantastic answer on how to explain to someone who has limited technical knowledge exactly WHY federation is the way to go for communication and that the instance you should pick relies almost exclusively on the reliability of the service (is it fast? does it stay running? is it going to exist in six months?) and the trustworthiness of the admin (are they someone who you can deal with in terms of moderation? do you trust they're not going to use their access to violate any trusts or behave in a way contrary to your beliefs?).
I'm old enough that my first foray into 'federated' content was Fidonet, and which BBS you called 'home' and posted from was almost exclusively a decision based on the local BBS community and the sysop because the messages and software were otherwise exactly the same from BBS to BBS.
So, my bias is that large instances can't be close communities and that larger instances require different and more aggressive and impersonal moderation and the bigger you get the more true both become.