• 0 Posts
  • 40 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 16th, 2023

help-circle


  • I imagine it like friend requests between communities: x@instance.a, all-about-x@instance.b and x-is-great@instance.c could send each other friend requests and merge into one federated meta-community about x. Then if one instance goes down the other two are still there to keep the meta-community alive, and if one goes rogue the others can just unfriend and keep going without it.

    The nice thing about manual federation is that the communities don’t have to have exactly the same name, and the mods can keep malicious or troll communities out. And ofc you could still have client-side control if you want to, e.g. add or remove a community just for you locally, or create your own local meta-community.











  • shrugal@lemmy.worldtoLinux@lemmy.ml*Permanently Deleted*
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    RHEL is not Fedora. It’s still lead by a community council, even if you don’t agree with some of their decisions.

    In case of your first link it wasn’t even about making a decision. The project has always had the clear stance to not include patented works, so there were no two ways about it.




  • Not really. Most centralized services are accessible via multiple domains, e.g. for different countries. This would just disable one of them, but users could still use another to log into their accounts. For the Fediverse it “disables” an entire instance, cuts it off from federation and locks out users.

    Lets not put a positive spin on a situation that exposes a weakness of the current system. The federation protocol needs to be able to handle these things gracefully, like propagating domain changes and migrating accounts between instances!




  • This is suspicion on the level of “you can’t be sure reality didn’t just pop into existence 10 seconds ago”. You can never be 100% sure of what others are doing on their hardware, or of anything really, especially if other people are involved. Your chat partners could leak all your chats and metadata for all you know!

    What we do know is that Signal is operated by a non-profit foundation, their client and protocol are open source and considered the gold standard for privacy by pretty much every expert on the subject, they had multiple independent audits and a very good track record, they were subpoenaed and couldn’t comply because they didn’t have the requested data. That’s about as good as you can get.


  • Using p2p for messaging is really nice for decentralization, but it has the major downside that both communication partners have to be online at the same time to find each other and transmit a message. So you might have to wait for it until both look at their phones at the exact same time. On top there are privacy issues, like being able to see the devices and public IP addresses of other users.

    Imo its just not practical and robust enough to be used by millions of non-techy people.