4 ms·
A cursory search on Google yields four results pertaining to the "confediverse". Being such a niche I wonder whether it's wise to label technology with such con
by tfsh 4y ago
A cursory search on Google yields four results pertaining to the "confediverse". Being such a niche I wonder whether it's wise to label technology with such contrieved descriptions.
I think it would be useful if you could explain the anatomy of such a term?
My reading [1] on the matter indicates that it can't be defined as a fediverse because the content is not owned by individual posters, indeed if I were to post something on a mastodon instance, I do not retain sole ownership of the data - a moderator could delete it, and thus "censor" my opinions. But I question, is this a true critisism? And does federation require each client connected to a distributed node to in it's own right retain absolute sovereignty over the content posted on that federated instance?
1: https://evbogue.com/howtosavetwitter https://evbogue.com/howtosavetwitter
- chatterhead 4y agoFederation means you go from many to one. Confederation means you act as one but remain many. Instances can block other instances. That's not a Federation. Instances can have other rules and allow other content. That's not a Federation. Mastodon is a confederacy by definition.
- guipsp 4y agoWhat a useless distinction - no server is going to allow all content
- chatterhead 4y agoA very important distinction. The prevailing system people subscribe to should be known and properly labelled. Otherwise it's just a bait and switch.
- BlueTemplar 4y agoI guess your definition of Confederation/confederacy applies to the World Wide Web too then ?
- arglebargle123 4y agoI'm too tired to make a Socialist Union joke about the fediverse right now but I'm absolutely convinced there's a good one to be made