this post was submitted on 23 Aug 2023
76 points (100.0% liked)

Fediverse

17710 readers
6 users here now

A community dedicated to fediverse news and discussion.

Fediverse is a portmanteau of "federation" and "universe".

Getting started on Fediverse;

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

There's been an ongoing debate about whether communities should combine or stay separate. Both have significant disadvantages and advantages:

Combine:

  • Network effects. Smaller communities become viable if they pool together their userbase. Communities with more people (up to a point!) are generally more useful and fun.
  • Discoverability. Right now, I might stumble on a 50 subscriber community and not realize everyone has abandoned it for the lively 500 subscriber community somewhere else, maybe with a totally different name.

Separate:

  • Redundancy. If a community goes down, or an instance is taken down, people can easily move over.
  • Diffusion of political power. Users can choose a different community or instance if the current one doesn't suit them. Mods are less likely to get drunk on power if they have real competition.

This isn't an exhaustive list, but I just want to show that each side has significant advantages over the other.

Sibling communities:

To have some of the advantages of both approaches, how about we have official "sibling communities"? For example, sign up for fediverse@lemmy.world and, along the top, it lists fediverse@lemmy.ml as a sibling community.

  • When you post, you have an easily accessible option to cross-post automatically to all sibling communities. You can also set it so that only the main post allows comments, to aggregate all comments to just one post, if that's desirable.
  • The UI could detect sibling cross-posts and suppress multiple mentions of the same post if you're subscribed to multiple sibling communities, maybe with a "cross-sibling post" designation. That way it only shows up once in your feed.
  • Both mod teams must agree to become siblings, so it can't be forced on any community.
  • Mods of either community can also decide to suppress the cross post if they feel it's too spammy or not suitable for cross discussion.
  • This allows you to easily learn about all related communities without abandoning your current one. This increases the network effects without needing to combine or destroy communities.

Of course, this could be more informal with just a norm to sticky a post at the top of every community to link to related communities. At least that way I know of the existence of other communities. I personally prefer the official designation so that various technologies can be implemented in the ways I mentioned.

top 24 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] erlend_sh@lemmy.world 16 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

The general idea is good, but I still believe the best solution is the ability for Communities to follow other Communities. That is essentially a fully automated version of this sibling proposal.

This has been explained in great detail by ‘jamon’ here:

https://github.com/LemmyNet/lemmy-ui/issues/1113#issuecomment-1595273502

This basically lets Communities opt to federate directly with other Communities, abiding by the same network dynamics as the fediverse at large, I.e. cross-network moderation by (de)federation.

Here’s a succinct description of the problem that C-C following solves:

If you are an active user (not moderator) of Lemmy, the requirement for this becomes apparent almost immediately. One of the biggest strengths of these forum are communities-at-scale. Being able to easily post and interact with large groups of people is the benefit to the user that makes Lemmy (and all other social media) appealing.

As a user, I recently wanted to post to AskLemmy. Almost every single instance has thier own separate AskLemmy implementation. Naturally, I'd tend to post to the one with the most users. But inherently, I'm missing the majority of users by only being able to post to one. I.E., I posted to AskLemmy@lemmy.ml (which had 3k users), but by doing that, I'm missing out on the users from lemm.ee, behaw, lemmy.world which in total are far more than 3k.

[–] fresh@sh.itjust.works 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

This is a good idea too, but I do see them as different implementations with different advantages.

  • "Following" is much simpler to implement, because it uses mostly existing systems. That's a big bonus.
  • "Following" is essentially automatic cross-posting, right? Presumably, everything from the followed community is cross-posted to the follower communities. I can't think of when I would ever prefer that over getting selective cross-posts. Sometimes I don't want to blast stuff out to all communities. Sometimes I want to post something in a local community, and other times I want to hear from all related (sibling) communities. Maybe it's just too centralized for me.
  • Siblings are related to each other but retain their unique identity. A followed person doesn't need to know or care about the follower, and doesn't have to allow any input from the follower. "Sibling" relations are bidirectional, while "follower" relations are unidirectional (though both sides can follow each other). I think all this has a big functional difference.

I suppose some of this is a matter of taste as well.

[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 15 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Redundancy has been so important recently with the DDoS attacks, and even as that subsides it's still definitely an important infrastructural perk that federation offers. It'd be a shame to lose that to centralization.

[–] dbilitated@aussie.zone 9 points 1 year ago

it would be good to have some kind of linking.

my feed is usually ten copies of the same thing posted to similar communities on different servers

[–] fresh@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I agree. Do you feel this proposal doesn't address that? My hope is that sibling communities would allow us to keep redundancy and diversity while still enjoying some of the benefits of sometimes coming together.

[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago

I do! It's why I thought it was important to highlight - I'm not too concerned about mod tyranny, per se, but I am concerned about servers going down.

[–] Lucia@eviltoast.org 2 points 1 year ago

Since I don't follow that much .world communities, I never really was affected by these attacks, so yeah, I totally agree with you! I hope we'll end up more decentralized at time goes on. It was hard to navigate people during the migration so a lot of them ended up in a huge one.

[–] Lazerbeams2@ttrpg.network 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This sounds good to me. I'm subscribed to c/rpgmemes which is run by the the old mod team of r/dndmemes but I'm also subscribed to c/dndmemes which is apparently run by people who wanted something like r/dndmemes. It's a little redundant and confusing but I wouldn't want either mod team to lose what they made

[–] fresh@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 year ago

Yeah that's a great example, especially because they have slightly different names. If you're not in the know, you might never know.

[–] Blaze@discuss.tchncs.de 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Interesting idea, thanks for sharing!

You might want to cross-post this to !fediverse@lemmy.world to get that community's feedback as well

[–] fresh@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 year ago

Good idea. Will do.

[–] spaduf@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 1 year ago

I think this has interesting but overall very positive implications for the local feed.

[–] maegul@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago

Yep ... agree! And have basically thought similarly on my own too. Thanks for proposing and writing this up!

[–] Lucia@eviltoast.org 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

There's something similar on Beehaw: on !technology@beehaw.org sidebar they include links to "subcommunities": for c/foss, c/programming and c/os. I would love to see more communities add related c/'s in their description too!

[–] Mane25@feddit.uk 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You've just reminded me of something that used to happen around 20 years ago on smaller forums which is "forum affiliates", where two or more forums with overlapping discussion interests would simply agree to link to each other to drive traffic.

I'm not sure how common that ever was or if it just happened with the types of forums I would visit, but it worked and there's nothing really similar in the Fediverse. Normally as a rule I tend towards the "stay separate" camp for communities - but something to boost visibility of related communities might at least help with the perceived drawbacks.

[–] Emperor@feddit.uk 1 points 1 year ago

Web rings were definitely a thing.

[–] Rottcodd@kbin.social -5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

For fucks sake - which part of "decentralized" do you people not understand?

[–] fresh@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I think you're forgetting the other half of the slogan: decentralized social network. You want to maximize decentralization? Disconnect from the internet and type to yourself on textpad. What we want out of the fediverse are the advantages of bringing people together, with the benefits of decentralization. No one wants decentralization as an end in itself.

[–] Rottcodd@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

Decentralization isn't an ideal - it's a fact. It's the reality of the fediverse.