3 ms·

I omitted that because the OP explicitly mentions and shows that the federation doesn't work. Given no rebuttal about that, "with fedration between them" has no

I omitted that because the OP explicitly mentions and shows that the federation doesn't work. Given no rebuttal about that, "with fedration between them" has no further meaning to me. (I also don't like how the original reply avoids a detailed discussion by merely pointing out the inconsistency instead, but that's another story.)

vidarh 2y ago
The OP claims federation doesn't work. It's a purely subjective viewpoint, and in my experience entirely false. I run two Mastodon instances, one of which is a single-user instance. On neither of those do I have the problems OP claims means Mastodon federation does not work.
- lifthrasiir 2y ago
  Yeah, you should have said that first to claim that. It is still entirely possible that the OP did experience what you thought to be impossible---that's a nature of any sizable service, innit?
  - vidarh 2y ago
    Or you should have not cut off an essential part of what you responded to baed on a belief about the veracity of OPs arguments. Federation provably works. All of my exchanges involve federation because there are no other users on my instance. As such his claims are exaggerations based on his subjective notions of how federation ought to work.
    - lifthrasiir 2y ago
      We are clearly talking about the federation in social networking services (which I and many others would call simply social networks, but since someone clearly didn't like that). The OP analyzes the federation as a means to build such services, while your anecdote only says that the federation is enough to serve your needs---the anecdote which the OP doesn't even object. While I don't use Mastodon for a lot of reasons, I had operated an IRC network for a long time and experienced its eventual demise as well. IRC started out as a worldwide federated network until it isn't, and many IRC networks only worked because of its constituent users---my network never reached that critical mass in comparison. I would have no reason to worry about that if IRC did have the working federation to this day! In the current fediverse choosing the correct nodes (or to federate, if you have your own personal node) is mandatory, indirectly showing that its federation is not enough, just like IRC.
      - vidarh 2y ago
        And I was talking about the federation in social networking services. My paragraph still stands in that context. You're response comes across as an incredibly bad faith reading of what I wrote. Federation does not give you a right to expect every instance to want to talk to you. This is the typical left- vs. right-libertarian thinking, where the right-libertarians tend to get all angry and upset when left-libertarians point out that maximising freedom includes maximising our freedom to choose who to associate with and set rules for that association. It's still federation if someone blocks your instance.

vidarh 2y ago

The OP claims federation doesn't work. It's a purely subjective viewpoint, and in my experience entirely false. I run two Mastodon instances, one of which is a single-user instance. On neither of those do I have the problems OP claims means Mastodon federation does not work.

lifthrasiir 2y ago
Yeah, you should have said that first to claim that. It is still entirely possible that the OP did experience what you thought to be impossible---that's a nature of any sizable service, innit?
- vidarh 2y ago
  Or you should have not cut off an essential part of what you responded to baed on a belief about the veracity of OPs arguments. Federation provably works. All of my exchanges involve federation because there are no other users on my instance. As such his claims are exaggerations based on his subjective notions of how federation ought to work.
  - lifthrasiir 2y ago
    We are clearly talking about the federation in social networking services (which I and many others would call simply social networks, but since someone clearly didn't like that). The OP analyzes the federation as a means to build such services, while your anecdote only says that the federation is enough to serve your needs---the anecdote which the OP doesn't even object. While I don't use Mastodon for a lot of reasons, I had operated an IRC network for a long time and experienced its eventual demise as well. IRC started out as a worldwide federated network until it isn't, and many IRC networks only worked because of its constituent users---my network never reached that critical mass in comparison. I would have no reason to worry about that if IRC did have the working federation to this day! In the current fediverse choosing the correct nodes (or to federate, if you have your own personal node) is mandatory, indirectly showing that its federation is not enough, just like IRC.
    - vidarh 2y ago
      And I was talking about the federation in social networking services. My paragraph still stands in that context. You're response comes across as an incredibly bad faith reading of what I wrote. Federation does not give you a right to expect every instance to want to talk to you. This is the typical left- vs. right-libertarian thinking, where the right-libertarians tend to get all angry and upset when left-libertarians point out that maximising freedom includes maximising our freedom to choose who to associate with and set rules for that association. It's still federation if someone blocks your instance.