Genuine inquiry . Maybe I am not experienced enough with the various federated platforms but I am an avid user of matrix, and have dabbled in lemmy. From what I have seen is federation is on the path to decentralization but not fully there. It creates fiefdom, little kingdoms . Great yes you may find one that suites you better, but users now can end up isolated to their island, switch island sure but now you are isolated for the previous island and maybe others. Its stupid. On matrix you need to know the other island(server) to even find its rooms(communities). Some rooms block users from one server while others block users of other servers. You either have to run multiple accounts or accept the limits. Add in you are at the mercy of your home server, you can lose your account have it immitated, and more. The performance is horrible not sure why, but content is slow to update and spread. Matrix has the problem because of its design most people are on the matrix.org server and so the point of federation is largely lost. They are moving to p2p where it seems the solutions for federation now dont apply.

Anyway why is federation not stupid? Are these problems only with Matrix? Cause I look at lemmy and it seems far worse.

  • Ferk@lemmy.ml
    2·
    3 years ago

    Whenever you see a video hosted in a server, you just post a comment to that video in that server. The authentication would just happen transparently. Your comment is still linked to your identity that would be server-independent.

    What is the advantage of doing it federated in this case? You still need authority to moderate the comments in the video. I expect Lemmy communities would not allow comments from servers that have been blacklisted or that have been removed, so ultimately the control of what content is in the community is centralized, only the access to the content and to posting is federated, so for the user there’s not much difference if the communication is server-to-server or client-to-servers.

      • lemm1ngs@lemmy.mlOP
        2·
        3 years ago

        Everyone who disagrees with the rules can talk to the admins, they’re humans. if you don’t agree with it, leave and find an instance that fits you. you’d still be able to access content all around fediverse.

        Are you saying content censored in one instance still persists on others here?

        I think the admin model can be done much better.

        • gwynne0190@lemmy.mlM
          1·
          3 years ago

          If you meant one instance rules affects other instances by that, then no, that’s not how it works.

      • Ferk@lemmy.ml
        2·
        3 years ago

        Everyone who disagrees with the rules can talk to the admins, they’re humans. if you don’t agree with it, leave and find an instance that fits you.

        I didn’t say I disagree with any rules. What I’m saying is that since the moderation authority is centralized for each community then the content stored in each community can be handled in a centralized way.

        this you’d have the control to remove people in servers that are toxic, if you do this with openID you’d have to individually ban users.

        The equivalent to this would be banning OpenID servers.

        Though you do not have any guarantees that the accounts for all the toxic people are in the same server (same as you don’t have a guarantee that the toxic people use the same OpenID servers). Ultimately, banning individual users is inevitable.

        You still need federation to social media servers or else it’ll be just walled gardens, centralized like we have before. your way wouldn’t work because the disconnected nature.

        It’s not a walled guarden if anyone can make its own community and people can access to it using any (non-blocked) OpenId server with any client. The same way as https://lemmy.ml/c/fediverse is not a walled just because it’s hosted in lemmy.ml, anyone can also make their own community and people still can access it from any (non-blocked) third party instance with any client.