I feel like one of the issues with these "new plan for X" essays or posts is that readers usually interpret it as something to completely replace the status quo. It's not the case. I'm not saying that everyone should start using this. I'm not saying that everyone should leave Mastodon. I'm not saying that all server-focused software using AP needs to go away.

I'm just saying that the current approach is not the only one and that Mozilla could have benefited from trying something different. I'm saying that Federation might be the right unit of organization for some cases, but that there is a whole world of possibilities where Federation is not so suitable.

I get it, it makes no sense to say that a network with 1M+ active users is "doing everything wrong" and that we need to start anew. I am not arguing the case to change those that are already here. I am arguing for changes that could help those that looked at "Federated Social Media" and went away because this model didn't work for them.

[–] h3ndrik@feddit.de 1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Hmm, I get you. But I don't think that's what this discussion is about. I'm more concerned with the technical difficulties / impossibilities / inconsistencies with the approach. Less so if it should replace the current solution or a possible upgrade path. That's something to worry about later. It's more like I don't think it's going to work properly. It's more combining the disadvantages of two different approaches.

But I'm happy if someone goes ahead and does a better approach. I also see the shortcomings of the current solution. Maybe I'm being too pessimistic.