Splitting hairs, but I think rather than implementing a partial defederation, I think it would be better to set user rights for a given federation instance. Some federations you might want to allow view only access, access to a certain "tier" of communities, etc. Make the rights customizable so its as granular as needed by the server.

I think it would be really nice to have a "fediverse map" for each server, to show where they're connected to and what instances are endorsed back.

Would make finding new servers/communities easier too

He said it, smiling maniacly as the interviewer clawed at his hands around her throat.

I have concerns that centralized activity will have the reddit problem - administration on those servers may not be ideal or quality could deteriorate over time.

I've been converting from coffee to matcha. It gives me a lot more energy and focus without the coffee jitters and stomach issues

My wife uses "moon milk" for her matcha lattes. Extremely tasty while covering all your daily sugar intake in one glass

Thanks! This is an ideal method for keeping servers in check once user base starts gathering steam.

Side question but I assume servers have the ability to make communities private. Is there any segregation of content when it comes to federated users? For example, could you make content only visible to users, or federated users, or federated users from a specific server? Thinking in terms of bad actors exploiting bandwidth

How does discord make money? It's always concerned me what data they're harvesting.

It's important to identify these arbitrary lines in the sand, thanks.

Definitely agree with you, though I'm not sure if it's reddit sponsored, users who don't know what they're talking about, or some other motivation.

I saw a post that said it has a large number of tankies and Nazis but have yet to find either.

I had an idea that servers could issue out "equity" or voting shares. Decisions like moderation teams, federation, or other choices could be voted on based on users stake.

These shares could have other uses as well.

I'm really glad people are approaching topics like this. I think the way cryptocurrencies are issued and implemented right now is completely toxic. Even mainstream ones like Bitcoin and ethereum encourage massive electrical use and pollution.

I would add that doesn't mean they should be outright dismissed as the novel invention that they were. The right implementation or version of crypto could be right around the corner, and I think it would be close minded to just dismiss without considering whether we're adding something of value to the fediverse.

I saw a trailer for it while watching spiderverse. Spiderverse is amazing btw

Maybe I shouldn't use the "Currency" term. These voting shares would represent ownership in the server and community, as well as a tool for governance. Any value assigned to them would be up to the community and the fediverse.

ICOs usually market a new way to mine or a promise of mass acceptance, but all these voting shares would have to back them is a server name and an admin, plus whatever the community can build from there. Additionally it would be fully centralized on the hosted machine.

I would expect the wider fediverse to wholly reject communities that treat them as crypto currencies for quick cash grabs. The goal is sustainability not pump and dump.

Yes, I did skip right to a "solution"

I came to the currency idea because of problems I foresee in Lemmy, some of them may be alleviated by other methods but I'll outline below. And I'm new to this fediverse stuff so if I am misinterpreting something I'd appreciate being corrected!

1. Ownership and Community - Servers are owned by their hosts and moderator team. I am a part of a server but have no real connection to the other members. Sharing, finding content, meeting new people is rewarding, but I don't need to find that in my local community currently. Users will gravitate towards more established servers - essentially coercing centralization of content. I think this problem is maybe unexpected as I've seen concern over fracturing (duplication) of content.
2. Moderation - There is no strong incentive for good governance of servers. Servers are free to allow bots to register or allow bad faith actors. They may be blacklisted, but this isn't sustainable. Eventually I expect we'll see (if not already) pockets of isolated servers that may be cross federated, but closed off to the open fediverse because it is too easy for poorly moderated servers to affect open servers. If a server wants to be taken seriously, they need to moderate and filter their userbase seriously.
3. Governance - back to #1, Servers are owner by their hosts - if a community disagrees with moderation or actions by the owners, you put up or get out. This guarantees that servers can not operate in perpetuity, and certainly not in a fair way.
4. Retention - There is no incentive to keep a server up. If I get tired of paying for my server, why wouldn't I just shut it down and register on a unique server?

Sorry I did end up solutioning a bit in those problems but I tried to keep it short.

For what would be an acceptable outcome -

1. Servers should have incentives in place to build their own community, outside the Fediverse
2. Servers should have incentives in place to moderate, filter, and even cull their user base (based on that servers Moderation and Governance policies)
3. Servers should have incentives in place to encourage perpetuity, and easy transfer of ownership

Oh great thats really helpful. Thanks!

Genshin impact needs to be run as administrator

Additionally if the main community declines in quality I'd expect users to migrate

I'm curious - why does each instance have its own copy of each others content? isn't that going to cause a ton of bloat over time?

Sometimes always never commit fully to something in most cases