• dreiwert@szmer.info
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 years ago

    How would a “built-in protection against centralization” even work?

    IMHO, you can only provide tools. You can’t prevent people from being stupid and not using them. That’s also why by now, e.g. the EU tries to solve such problems through regulation.

    • federico3
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 years ago

      The protocol could require “dual-homing” user accounts, where each account is automatically replicated on 2 different instances without need for hacks and workarounds. That would prevent users from losing their account if an instance is shut down, and also make it easy to migrate to a new instance without losing followers etc. The clients following your account always check for updates on both instances and if you move one of your accounts they update automatically.

      (This would not create significant additional load on the network: your toots are already being replicated on all instances where you have followers.)

      IMHO, you can only provide tools

      No, tools are rarely “neutral”. They encourage or discourage workflows and behaviors.

      • Grouchy@hub.grouchysysadmin.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 years ago

        @federico3

        The protocol could require “dual-homing” user accounts, where each account is automatically replicated on 2 different instances without need for hacks and workarounds. That would prevent users from losing their account if an instance is shut down, and also make it easy to migrate to a new instance without losing followers etc. The clients following your account always check for updates on both instances and if you move one of your accounts they update automatically.

        Sounds like Nomadic identity from the Hubzilla and Streams projects.