I feel that lemmy is a bit too centralized around lemmy.ml

Agree, but this is not a feature issue. The problem is that most people are on lemmy.ml, and so are naturally the communities that they create. The question is how to get newcomers (including myself actually !) to register on other instances.

Reddit has a feature called "multireddit" that basically aggregates multiple subreddits.

Right, but multireddit are just aggregated feeds from different communities, not actual merging.

Anyway, I don't think that this merging idea is a good one, I was just trying to figure out what you meant with cross instance communities.

topics" or categories that were cross-instance

Do you mean ... ?

1. the ability to create a community hosted on two instances at the same time

I don't the point of that. You create a community on one instance and people from other instances can join it. What is wrong with that?

Or mayne you mean ...?

2. Automatically merging two communities with the same name that exist on different instances.

What if the same name labels two different topics? On the other hand, what if two communities on the same topic have different names? (eg on reddit there's r/howyoudoing and r/friendstvshow) I think it's up to the communities to decide whether to merge or not.

If you are involved in communities that you think should merge, I think the only viable first step is to understand why they are differennt communities.

Thanks for your detailed response! There are essentially three approaches that I've been taking to try to understand your model. Before that, a quick remark

I dont particularly care on classifications

Given the title of your post, I was assuming that there are platforms that you classify as federated and that you think it is a poor design choice. But I don't really understand what you mean by that given that your rant includes quite a broad range of topics.

Storage

That I think I understand correctly that it works as a p2p network where everyone seeds a bit of everything. Do users control what part of the network they seed? If yes, then the issue that you might lose your content if someone else (in this case, everyone else) suddenly doesn't want to share it anymore still exists.

If not, then isn't any user an accomplice of the diffusion of whatever illegal content circulates? I don't want to participate is sharing pedopornographic content !

Distribution

Is the app in your model based on an open protocol, that anyone can use to start their own network? Then what happens when people on two such networks try to interact with each other?

It has to be, otherwise it is clearly a centralised network that can be single-handedly shut down by its maintainer.

Network

Logically, the concept of shared blacklist seems to me to be equivalent to federation. If you publicly subscribe to a mod's blacklist, it's like if your were joining their instance on the fediverse. If you don't, it's like you were creating your own instance, but then you have to implement a blacklist yourself.

I understand the biggest difference is that it's easier to "start your instance", but that again implies everyone agrees to seed your content. I would not seed anyone's content if there is no code of conduct they have to obey. And that seems to logically yield users only seeding content approved by their chosen mods, which brings us back to a federated storage, except that each instance's data is stored in p2p rather than in a centralized server. But the instance mod still has the same power as in the fediverse case.

Ok I'm not sure whether I understand how to mods are set.

• if there are global mods who have the power to include to or exclude from the plaform, this is a centralised platform
• if each user chooses one or more mods from which they automatically derive white and/or black list, this is a federated platform
• if each user can only accept or block people for themselves, this is a decentralized platform (but you told me there are mods, so it cannot be that one)

Do you agree with the above classification? If yes, which one is it?

Maybe my question is equivalent to the following : what is the power of the mods?

There is moderators and they can enforce rules, it's just each user is put kind of in an admin position to pick and choose the moderators.

Wait, if there are globally set modarators, how is this not a centralised network ? I mean ok it uses p2p technology so the data is not physically centralised on a single server. But the network itself, the graph of interactions, it is a single blob where every node is connected to every other. Or do I miss something?

I know you have that with each community but I am talking also platform wide.

Maybe to simplify the discussion let's talk about a platform who is not subdivised in communities, like mastodon or facebook. Communities are already some kind of federation.

should instead be the users themselves organizing on the platform setting the rules.

Ok but nobody has the power to enforce the rules right? How do you deal with trolling and spamming? Does every user have to block every troll one by one?

I would use a moderation approach as like discussions.app is trying

which is?

Ok my first sentence was very naive and due to my ignorance on p2p data storage. I do understand from your answer that it's nontrivial.

About those instances things, say there are 3 instances. One instance A that is huge, where a lot of people that you know are, but is very laxist on its CoC. One instance B who aims at being a safe space for its users, and hence is not federated with instance A. Then you have instance C, who has the same CoC as instance B, so it can federate with it. Instance C can also federate with instance A. Hence my statement : one instance C can federate with two instances A abd B who don't federate with each other.

Note that instance C is not a duplicate of anything, it is just an instance whose users are open enough to the sensible content of instance A and polite enough to not publish anything that would be offensive for the instance B users. Note that I don't know about the details on how comments/mentions between instances A and C are perceived by instance B.

Can you say more about how content moderation and codes of conduct work on a p2p network?

P2P is probably better for direct communication, but I hardly see how a P2P publishing platform (forum, microblogging, ...) would work. As far as I understand, this would involve a permanently running home server storing at least your full history, right?

Add in you are at the mercy of your home server, you can lose your account have it immitated, and more.

Indeed, the main criterion to choose an instance (server) should be that you trust the people who run it. If no existing instance fit that criterion (or any other of your criteria, for that matter), you are free to create one.

Great yes you may find one that suites you better, but users now can end up isolated to their island

... which is also a criterion to look for an instance (server). Some look for a broadly federated network, others for a "safe space" kind of experience. Servers exist for both use-cases.

but now you are isolated for the previous island and maybe other

which makes sense when one considers moderation. If you are running a "safe space" instance, you don't probably don't want your users to be exposed to less moderated content, and you certainly cannot moderate one by one all the sensible content from across the federation. So it makes perfect sense to federate only with instances who have a reasonable code of conduct.

You either have to run multiple accounts or accept the limits.

Note that there's another solution allowed by the following property: an instance can be federated with two instances who are not federated with each other. Concretely, this means that you can create an instance who both has a CoC for its own content strict enough to federate with safe space ones, and federates with instances who have a less strict CoC to access their content.

I think we might agree on the following : a big tech corp willing to federate would not be a direct threat for the community of users of the fediverse, but is rather one for the community of the developers that help maintaining it. This could happen through professional devs outnumbering the FOSS ones and becoming the leading voice that sets the direction, And/or through the countless issues and feature requests that will come at once from the big tech userbase. This is really something the fedi needs to be prepared for.

Let me add that on the other hand, I don't think it would be a good thing if we were worried that users join back big tech if they relax on some aspects, and follow some fediverse friends from their corporate account. If we were to refuse to federate with corporate socials for that single reason, that would be using their method of keeping the users as hostages

One criterion that I don't see in other comments and that was decisive for me to choose a mastodon instance is the language. In a generally english-speaking fediverse, it is refreshing to have a local feed where most posts are in my mothertongue.

All the players on the corporate web may jump on it now, to claim their stake, get a position, and monetize it as much as they can.

They'll find some way to make money out of federating, but this does not necessarily have any effect on current fedizens.

Instance A and B will be pushed in undiscoverable niche, far from regular fedizens to discover.

Basically, the difference is that today this niche is called the fediverse, right?

We get SEO, and Ads, and trackers

Their users get that, or rather they keep that. They cannot force their trackers on instances who don't want them. At least in this situation, their users stays there out of free will, as they gain the liberty to leave the corporate instance without losing contact with their friends who are still there.

scraping sites duplicating your stuff

This is indeed an issue, and that will happen once the fed gets big enough, independently on any big jump.

The technology standards will be ripped from our hands, now developed mainly by corporations.

Indeed the further development of the open standards is something that requires a great care.

But what then, was the original purpose of achieving this growth?

As an individual, being able to leave the big tech websites (and escape their SEO, ads, trackers) while keeping contact with my friends who are still there is certainly something I would look forward to. Again, it would offer more liberty to leave corporate for the people on instances A, while people who don't want to follow anyone from corporate can stay on instances B.

If poor transport planning is the reason, then it means that there are times where too much transport offer is set at places where it is not needed, and they would be better set somewhere else instead. I don't tend to observe that (but of course, this is a single person's experience!), which makes me think that they lack financial means to improve their service.