4 ms·

a winning instance That would defeat the purpose. Lemmy is a fediverse application. The whole point is decentralization. A winning instance would concentrate p

a winning instance That would defeat the purpose. Lemmy is a fediverse application. The whole point is decentralization. A winning instance would concentrate power in the hands of one admin. We don’t want that!

dryanau 3y ago
The general public does not care at all about that. It's the experience alone that matters. Lemmy is confusing and weird to the majority who look into it.
MetaWhirledPeas 3y ago
I don't think it would defeat the purpose at all. Even if you have a winner, decentralization ensures there will always be a quick, nearly-equivalent alternative waiting in the wings. And as my sibling poster stated, a winning instance (or a handful of them) is/are necessary for public buy-in.
LeFantome 3y ago
Centralization was literally the entire point of Reddit for anybody that visited more than one sub. We already had a decentralized Reddit—-it is called The Internet.
- dvngnt_ 3y ago
  the internet is a network but reddit and lemmy are services made for creating sub communities
p-e-w 3y ago
> Lemmy is a fediverse application. The whole point is decentralization. No, that's just a marketing lie. The biggest instances have politically-charged "codes of conduct" that other instances are forced to adopt or be defederated. IIRC, some instances even require those rules to be applied transitively, that is, they will defederate from your instance unless you enforce their rules on all instances that you federate with, and so on. The whole point of Lemmy and Mastodon is political control, while convincing people that it isn't so. I'm honestly astonished to see how many smart folks are falling for their lies; mostly, I suspect, because the Fediverse's political leanings pander to their own biases.
- deeviant 3y ago
  > I'm honestly astonished to see how many smart folks are falling for their lies What exactly are the lies? No one group is in control, each fiefdom is free to do what they wish, including not consorting with those they feel are of ill repute or temperament. As far as being "politically charged", that's just the way the world (well, ok the US at least) is now. Blame the culture warriors who can only think in terms of how something fits or does not fit into their world view, and seek generally only to pander to their base.
  - p-e-w 3y ago
    > No one group is in control, each fiefdom is free to do what they wish That's not true in practice. The purpose of a social network is to communicate with others. Network effects ensure that the biggest instances grow ever bigger, and thus not federating with them effectively means not participating in the network. If those instances then impose their rules on other instances under threat of defederation, and further demand that other instances do the same, again under threat of defederation, the "free" network turns into a monoculture that is effectively controlled by whoever runs the most influential instances. Claiming that you are still free to do as you wish under these circumstances is like claiming that you are free to do as you wish on the Internet, as long as you don't connect to any other computers. Imagine if email, a truly federated system, worked that way. It would be utterly useless. "Sorry, you can't send mail to user@example.com, because example.com does not require other domains that send mail to it to abide by our code of conduct."
    - mariusor 3y ago
      > Imagine if email, a truly federated system, worked that way. Maybe news to you, but that's exactly how e-mail works. DKIM, DMARC and all the other anti-SPAM measures amount to exactly that. If your server is not proven to abide by the "code of conduct" of not spamming people, your emails get nowhere. And speaking of fediverse and "network effects", you might not realize but besides the westernized section of the fediverse, Asia has a large community which is mostly defederated on mainstream instances because of what people consider questionable content. They are probably larger in actual numbers. So federation does work as intended. What you really want, I suspect, is to shove your questionable political opinions down the throats of folk that don't really want to be subjected to them. And somehow being told no, is everybody else's problem and not your own.

dryanau 3y ago

The general public does not care at all about that. It's the experience alone that matters. Lemmy is confusing and weird to the majority who look into it.

MetaWhirledPeas 3y ago

I don't think it would defeat the purpose at all. Even if you have a winner, decentralization ensures there will always be a quick, nearly-equivalent alternative waiting in the wings. And as my sibling poster stated, a winning instance (or a handful of them) is/are necessary for public buy-in.

LeFantome 3y ago

Centralization was literally the entire point of Reddit for anybody that visited more than one sub. We already had a decentralized Reddit—-it is called The Internet.

dvngnt_ 3y ago
the internet is a network but reddit and lemmy are services made for creating sub communities

p-e-w 3y ago

> Lemmy is a fediverse application. The whole point is decentralization. No, that's just a marketing lie. The biggest instances have politically-charged "codes of conduct" that other instances are forced to adopt or be defederated. IIRC, some instances even require those rules to be applied transitively, that is, they will defederate from your instance unless you enforce their rules on all instances that you federate with, and so on. The whole point of Lemmy and Mastodon is political control, while convincing people that it isn't so. I'm honestly astonished to see how many smart folks are falling for their lies; mostly, I suspect, because the Fediverse's political leanings pander to their own biases.

deeviant 3y ago
> I'm honestly astonished to see how many smart folks are falling for their lies What exactly are the lies? No one group is in control, each fiefdom is free to do what they wish, including not consorting with those they feel are of ill repute or temperament. As far as being "politically charged", that's just the way the world (well, ok the US at least) is now. Blame the culture warriors who can only think in terms of how something fits or does not fit into their world view, and seek generally only to pander to their base.
- p-e-w 3y ago
  > No one group is in control, each fiefdom is free to do what they wish That's not true in practice. The purpose of a social network is to communicate with others. Network effects ensure that the biggest instances grow ever bigger, and thus not federating with them effectively means not participating in the network. If those instances then impose their rules on other instances under threat of defederation, and further demand that other instances do the same, again under threat of defederation, the "free" network turns into a monoculture that is effectively controlled by whoever runs the most influential instances. Claiming that you are still free to do as you wish under these circumstances is like claiming that you are free to do as you wish on the Internet, as long as you don't connect to any other computers. Imagine if email, a truly federated system, worked that way. It would be utterly useless. "Sorry, you can't send mail to user@example.com, because example.com does not require other domains that send mail to it to abide by our code of conduct."
  - mariusor 3y ago
    > Imagine if email, a truly federated system, worked that way. Maybe news to you, but that's exactly how e-mail works. DKIM, DMARC and all the other anti-SPAM measures amount to exactly that. If your server is not proven to abide by the "code of conduct" of not spamming people, your emails get nowhere. And speaking of fediverse and "network effects", you might not realize but besides the westernized section of the fediverse, Asia has a large community which is mostly defederated on mainstream instances because of what people consider questionable content. They are probably larger in actual numbers. So federation does work as intended. What you really want, I suspect, is to shove your questionable political opinions down the throats of folk that don't really want to be subjected to them. And somehow being told no, is everybody else's problem and not your own.