This is a big problem. It creates the illusion that /c/cats on one particular instance is the real /c/cats.
This is the root of re-centralization and it must be pulled out.
This is a big problem. It creates the illusion that /c/cats on one particular instance is the real /c/cats.
This is the root of re-centralization and it must be pulled out.
What are you on? So instances should have no say in regards to who they federate with? Also it sounds like you’re advocating for centralization… Why would we want that?
To me it sounds like they’re advocating for decentralization. Defederation means less traffic for an instance. If the majority of users are already on one instance, defederation could end it. I imagine most people want an instance where they can reach the most people. If they, understandably, pick the largest instance, it may not be long before it holds all the power, in terms of user acivity or count, and becomes the center.
I don’t understand the push back. Decentralization is Lemmy’s one trick. It is the entire thing that sets it apart.
The ideal would be a network of single user instances.
Multi users instances being an allowance for helping the technically challenged, but should be considered equivalent to toothbrush sharing.
All single user instance should have every /c/community. In fact, community is overselling it. They are really hashtags plus a sidebar.
I understand the push back and I don’t think it could ever reach the ideal for decentralization without sacrificing much of what it currently is. The average person will need an entry point or some general instance before moving to one that more fits their needs. What’s on the front page, determined entirely by federation and defederation, will be a person’s first impression. If it’s bad, that person may never be back, and growth will likely be slowed or stopped. If it’s a single-user instance, the chance that it’s a bad first impression becomes higher because a user will start without a blocklist.