I used to think that there would be 1, main 'Fediverse' with all of the 'big instances' connected to each other. The recent Threads debacle has shown me otherwise.

The point of the Fediverse is that there is no one single entity, or group of entities, dominating it all.

Right now it feels like whatever the big instances do, we kind of have to go along with to be a part of anything. As the Fediverse grows, there will be more options to suit different types of users.

I think it's fine if big instances federate with Threads and it's fine if they don't. People can just join instances that align with what they want. It's not like defederating means being cut out of the Fediverse, that's not possible.

Great design. I'm eager to see how it plays out.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] breakfastmtn@lemmy.ca 42 points 11 months ago (5 children)

Not the solution I was hoping for but it's an extremely reasonable compromise. I've never heard of selective authorized fetch. Pretty sure he just invented it.

[–] Flaky@iusearchlinux.fyi 8 points 11 months ago (3 children)

Authorised fetch has been a thing on Mastodon and I believe Akkoma too. I don't know if Pleroma, Soapbox or Misskey have it though.

[–] russjr08@bitforged.space 6 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Authorized Fetch has been a thing for a bit on Mastodon at least - but as far as I can see it's a global toggle rather than saying "If you present as a domain on the blocklist then you must be authorized to fetch this resource" (the selective authorized fetch I assume they're talking about).

Never used Akkoma though, so I can't speak for it.

[–] Flaky@iusearchlinux.fyi 4 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Yeah the selective part I think is new. I believe Akkoma's authorised fetch is similar to Mastodon, though I've also heard it came at the cost of breaking MRFs (essentially policies to handle incoming messages, that can be custom-written if needed)

load more comments (1 replies)

load more comments (2 replies)