4 ms·
I don't think so. Being able to switch what provider hosts your social media without losing your network is valuable (and has pro-social effects) without needi
by jrochkind1 5y ago
I don't think so.
Being able to switch what provider hosts your social media without losing your network is valuable (and has pro-social effects) without needing to self-host.
> That's how we've ended up with email being as difficult as it is to self-host.
I'm not sure what you mean, what's the "that", what do you think led to the situation where email is hard to self-host?
Even if hard to self-host, email succeeds in avoiding vendor lock-in if you have your own domain. Which most people don't, because of cost and because _that_ can be hard to manage for a normal person. But if fediverse succeeds at giving a typical person the lack of vendor lock-in that email-with-your-own-custom-domain does, I'd consider that a success on the criteria of what federation is meant to achieve.
- dotnet00 5y ago>I'm not sure what you mean, what's the "that", what do you think led to the situation where email is hard to self-host? I was referring to spam filtering, where all the big hosts know to allow each other through, but make it very difficult for smaller hosts to participate by being tight lipped about their filtering criteria and making others have to jump through lots of hoops to not be treated as spam. Which, when considering the high cost of being spam filtered (eg. if you're a business) ends up making it very hard to practically self-host. Similarly, I wouldn't think fediverse would have succeeded in the goals of federation with large centralized hosting providers. Since upon reaching critical mass, they could easily enact similar policies in the name of preventing spam or for 'safety'. The content would be going through their network and would be stored on their hardware, so they would use the same logic current social media uses to justify their right to moderate without oversight.