Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Federated App Problem

plug-world.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 201 posts

Re: The Federated App Problem

#41

Post by sxg »

class4behavior wrote: post #20
sxg wrote: post #4

I agree with the premise of the article. I’m a new Mastodon user trying to give the platform an honest shot, but I can’t understand why I would choose any particular server over another. Why choose anything other than the pseudo-default Mastodon.social? If I’m forced to choose another server, is that choice actually meaningful? I feel like I’m randomly picking between Hachyderm and TechHub.io and others. One advantag…

The same way people manage to decide whether to buy buns at the bakery on the right rather than the one on the left or donate to the NGO1 rather than NGO2 doing exactly the same, you ought to manage to judge which instance is a better fit or if it even matters in your case. >why would all problematic users congregate on the same server? Isn’t it far more likely that you’ll have to block individual users across numero…

Perhaps Mastodon is just too immature at this stage for the servers to really differentiate themselves from each other. However, as the number of users and posts on Mastodon grows, will any server actually be capable of adequate moderation? Twitter has ~6,000 tweets per second—it's hard to imagine any Mastodon server today being able to handle even a fraction of that content.

Re: The Federated App Problem

#42

Post by remram »

Isn't this entire point about SEO negated by judicious use of Link rel=canonical? Or just excluding foreign content via robots.txt?

I don't see why this is described as such an insurmountable fundamental flaw.

Re: The Federated App Problem

#44

Post by vin047 »

armchairhacker wrote: post #39

A big problem is that you don't actually see content on other instances. Also, you can't link accounts between instances (EDIT: you can post and subscribe to communities on other instances, but it's not obvious. You can't link 2 accounts on separate instances though) There are several rust instances: https://lemmy.ml/c/rust , https://programming.dev/c/rust , https://lemmyrs.org/ , and probably more. Why aren't they l…

> This could even help with the decentralization aspect, because ideally the content and accounts would be replicated. So if one instance goes down, its content is still on connected instances, and possibily "ghost accounts" from that instance which let users there continue to post

So Usenet?

Re: The Federated App Problem

#45

Post by SheinhardtWigCo »

_HMCB_ wrote: post #12

One problem I see is the lack of cohesiveness between clients. What one client/app chooses to name a “repost” is different than another client. Icons for said features also vastly differ. So it’s hard to build unity through the ecosystem without a common language (visual and vocabulary). This is just my brand developer’s take.

This is a big part of why I'm skeptical when folks point to email as an example of a successful federated system: most of the common language and conceptual model was established thousands of years ago.

Re: The Federated App Problem

#46

Post by croutonwagon »

class4behavior wrote: post #20
sxg wrote: post #4

I agree with the premise of the article. I’m a new Mastodon user trying to give the platform an honest shot, but I can’t understand why I would choose any particular server over another. Why choose anything other than the pseudo-default Mastodon.social? If I’m forced to choose another server, is that choice actually meaningful? I feel like I’m randomly picking between Hachyderm and TechHub.io and others. One advantag…

The same way people manage to decide whether to buy buns at the bakery on the right rather than the one on the left or donate to the NGO1 rather than NGO2 doing exactly the same, you ought to manage to judge which instance is a better fit or if it even matters in your case. >why would all problematic users congregate on the same server? Isn’t it far more likely that you’ll have to block individual users across numero…

I have also noticed that in some cases....user blocks are being replicated to an instance I run. I have this huge and ever growing list of banned users on my single user instance in lemmy. ANd I have no idea who is banning and why...I doesnt seem to affect me...but its odd

Re: The Federated App Problem

#47

Post by gremlinsinc »

vin047 wrote: post #44
armchairhacker wrote: post #39

A big problem is that you don't actually see content on other instances. Also, you can't link accounts between instances (EDIT: you can post and subscribe to communities on other instances, but it's not obvious. You can't link 2 accounts on separate instances though) There are several rust instances: https://lemmy.ml/c/rust , https://programming.dev/c/rust , https://lemmyrs.org/ , and probably more. Why aren't they l…

> This could even help with the decentralization aspect, because ideally the content and accounts would be replicated. So if one instance goes down, its content is still on connected instances, and possibily "ghost accounts" from that instance which let users there continue to post So Usenet?

Or, IRC. For all the major support systems (most I think now have moved to discord), they all had a freenode channel, but what if they'd all chosen different networks, so you'd need to connect to maybe a different network for mysql, another for postgres, another for php, another for rust, etc...

To make it more confusing though, all of those networks EACH have their own smaller channel for those technologies, just the official one is on x server.

Reddit is awesome because it's one place to get ALL content related to a niche under one umbrella, and because you can use awesome 3rd party apps -- the next reddit replacement doesn't need to be federated, but it could be community-ran as a sort of DAO, where users can vote on features/etc...

Re: The Federated App Problem

#48

Post by drdaeman »

JoshTriplett wrote: post #37
donio wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ... but I can’t understand why I would choose any particular server over another. Email is often a good analogy for questions like these: Why do you pick one email service over the other? Maybe you think the domain is cool. Maybe you heard that they are reliable or have features that others don't. Maybe your university, company or other community you belong to runs its own service. Or you decide to host your own. O…

And for both email and the Fediverse, there's an ideal answer that requires only marginally more work: have your own domain. In both cases, you don't have to host a server yourself, you can pay for email hosting and use your own domain. For email, services like Fastmail let you bring your own domain. For the Fediverse, https://togethr.party/ works well.

This works with email, but not so much with Fediverse. There is no standard or - AFAIK - even attempts domain/account sharing (unless you hack your way around), you'll have to be you@mastodon.your.name and you@lemmy.your.name and you@peertube.your.name, but not [at least not easily] you@your.name if you want to use it with multiple systems.

Re: The Federated App Problem

#49

Post by ShadowBanThis01 »

class4behavior wrote: post #20
sxg wrote: post #4

I agree with the premise of the article. I’m a new Mastodon user trying to give the platform an honest shot, but I can’t understand why I would choose any particular server over another. Why choose anything other than the pseudo-default Mastodon.social? If I’m forced to choose another server, is that choice actually meaningful? I feel like I’m randomly picking between Hachyderm and TechHub.io and others. One advantag…

The same way people manage to decide whether to buy buns at the bakery on the right rather than the one on the left or donate to the NGO1 rather than NGO2 doing exactly the same, you ought to manage to judge which instance is a better fit or if it even matters in your case. >why would all problematic users congregate on the same server? Isn’t it far more likely that you’ll have to block individual users across numero…

But why force people to categorize themselves? There's no special type of Twitter for people who are musicians, for example, or people who do airbrush paintings of squirrels. Who knows what you might want to send messages about tomorrow or next year or in half an hour?

Having "themed" instances implies that you're committing to whatever that theme is, but all you want to do is share whatever is on your mind from day to day. This apparent pigeonholing is enough to make the whole idea a failure. Remember Yahoo? It wanted you to drill down through dozens or hundreds of canned search categories... and then Alta Vista came along with just a text box. And of course today that's Google too.

Speaking of search... the bizarre and rabid animosity expressed by many Mastodon users toward FINDING CONTENT on Mastodon is baffling. I've seen threads where someone asks how to search for things on Mastodon and gets berated for even suggesting that people who PUBLISH STUFF on the Internet would ever want it found.

Re: The Federated App Problem

#50

Post by jeroenhd »

sxg wrote: post #16
7e wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, all problematic users don’t congregate on the same server. Problematic users can pop up anywhere. However, a server could fail to moderate effectively and become a source of misinformation and trolling. That’s the benefit of federation: it ensures a minimum level of moderation quality. Servers that don’t moderate are blocked, which sets up the proper incentives.

Sure, but as the number of users on the federated service grows, how do we not end up in the same place as email today? Does it not become good moderation policy to auto-block all new and small servers (e.g., self-hosted email servers) if you're a big server (e.g., Gmail)? If that happens, wouldn't all users migrate to the big server (e.g., Gmail) and effectively re-establish centralization and undermine federation?

The inverse happened recently on Lemmy. Beehaw.org, a community focused on good behavior, defederated lemmy.world and another smaller site because those sites caused a lot of unwanted content and moderator intervention. Lemmygrad.ml, a bunch of communist extremists, also gets blocked quite often, not just by principled servers like beehaw.

A lot of people got mad for being blocked, but honestly I can't blame the admins for trying to reduce the amount of moderation necessary. There are thousands of people per moderator on those sites and that combined with open registration is a recipe for toxic bullshit nobody wants to deal with.

Smaller instances don't get blocked, though. I doubt they will be until the low quality shitposters will figure out a way to host a server of their own, but without a central gathering place I think even then the abuse will be easily prevented.

That said, Lemmy used to be set to whitelist-only by default for ages. This has been changed, but if someone wants to federate with just their servers of choice, they can just toggle a setting.

Lemmy also comes with an approval form by default, which is used manually to vet users during signup. Open signup servers disable that field, obviously, but those servers are often also the ones that get blocked.

I can see this evolving to a situation where only closed or manually approved servers get federated by default. Requiring manual reduces the probability that a small team of admins will get overwhelmed by a large influx of users.

Post reply on HN