I’ve seen around 3 occasions of that this week, altho I have never seen anything like it before.

if I remember correctly they were:

  • smack talking a mod (FlyingSquid) for saying not to report the same comment twice, when they were different comments, and the report was spam
  • someone comparing .world with .ml in politics (as in there was a comment saying "this post will be overrun with .ml people, and then a comment going “but you are from .world”) (Maybe Im part of the problem? I have been called out for being a fascist because I questioned the “puching nazis” theme)
  • one more which I can’t remember.

Anyways, what is all that about? Are people really starting to hate on 50% of the lemmy population because of their instance?

  • OpenStars@discuss.online
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    10 hours ago

    No, the whole point for the federation is to share the content. For one, it allows redundancy so that if a rogue mod or admin decided to delete a bunch of stuff, then every other instance still retains copies of what came from it.

    But that said, having to keep everything up to the second, in batches of a single action, is extremely limiting. If I downvote someone with an accidental button press, then undownvote them, then upvote - that could have been just one net interaction to send, but instead it is three.

    • Lvxferre
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 hour ago

      Redundancy is better handled through specialised mirrors, similar in spirit to reveddit. That would be even more transparent than the current system - as the mirrors could translate actions like content removal into content highlighting, so it would stick out like a sore thumb*. This would also throw the burden associated with redundancy (transmission, storage, removal of clearly illegal content) into a few machines, instead of the whole network.

      I’m aware that it’s a weaker form of federation than the current one but, as long as the front-end handles simultaneous multi-account and merges the feeds of the instances that you’re registered to, it’s already addressing the main needs:

      • users can see content from multiple places without registering individually to each
      • users don’t need to see what they don’t want to
      • content is still spread out, so no instance controls the whole
      • admins still have control over who accesses their own instance (through defederation + banning).

      *currently you can only find a piece of removed content if you know that it exists.

      • OpenStars@discuss.online
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        32 seconds ago

        At a wild guess, it could literally be the communism?

        No really, I’m serious: what you are describing sounds to me like there is a sense of “ownership”, as in an instance owns a community, whereupon everything else is lesser than the owner with respect to that particular content - e.g. the others “mirror” the content that is “owned” by the instance that the community is on. A master/slave relationship, in computer science terminology.

        In contrast, ActivityPub sounds to me (caveat: I’ve never read the source) like everyone is equal, hence why every action is shared equally by all. A distributed burden. Except without the major traditional benefits of it being distributed - i.e. Aussie.Zone cannot simply connect to some other server instance with less physical distance between it and Lemmy.World, no it must go straight to the source, even when that results in a 7-day delay (and even that cutoff is only because things older than that simply get deleted).

        On the other hand, there’s nothing stopping someone from not respecting the deletion requests, and instead highlighting that content, in the current Lemmy framework. It would definitely be a deviation from the standard codebase though. And therefore every time there’s an update or patch, there would have to be a merge event to keep that feature functional.

        I wonder if the reason your idea is not done is bc it relies too much on “trusting” the client for security reasons? Although… tbf I’m not certain how much that would differ from how things are now.