• shrugal@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      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” your CDN or DNS servers.

      • shrugal@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Cryptocurrencies and social platforms are completely different beasts. In crypto I want no moderation/censorship, I want anonymity, and 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 of.

        • LordShrek@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          This is all different when building a social network

          wait you want censorship in a social network? also, the architecture i’m describing does not do away with moderation and social structure. what about it makes you think that to be the case?

          • shrugal@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Of course! Moderation is censorship. There is certain content I don’t want to see, and I don’t want to have to filter it myself so I join a community of seemingly likeminded people who censor content based on rules I generally agree with. They ban users who break the rules, keep spambots out, block malicious instances and so on, and if they are doing their job right then it builds trust and attracts more people.

            what about it makes you think that to be the case?

            Because you want to strip all that out and abstract it away. Who do you think would do the moderating and spam blocking? Who aggregates posts from all over the world and presents a sorted list to a user on their smartphone? It would be the wild west with users having to do everything themselves. I know it’s tempting to think about building a Fediverse without instances, but afaik you need these social structures for the system to work.

            Crypto for example only works because you can define the rules mathematically beforehand, and then hand out money for computers to check them. That’s just not possible with a public forum, at least not yet imo.

            • LordShrek@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago

              you want to strip all that out

              i do not want to strip out the functionality of communities having mods that moderate the discourse and ban malicious users etc. it sounds like you misunderstood what i was proposing.

              • shrugal@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 year ago

                What I’m saying is that you cannot do those features with what you’re proposing, regardless of what you might want to do.

                • LordShrek@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  ok. so you are misunderstanding what i am proposing then.

                  i can explain in more detail any part of the design if you wish.

                  • shrugal@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    Sure 😁

                    I think the one thing we could adopt from crypto is having public keys as user IDs, instead of tying it to an instance. But that would require users to handle their own keys, and people are just reeeaaally bad at that!