It's a mild pain and definitely not what we were promised, but I guess that's the only way federation can really work in practice (especially considering when an instance is blocked user on the blocker side just continue to see it frozen in time, with no warning as to what's going on)

[–] cypherpunks@lemmy.ml 24 points 8 months ago

It’s a mild pain and definitely not what we were promised

I think this is precisely what the ActivityPub model of federation promised, actually 😅

[–] ladfrombrad@lemdro.id 7 points 8 months ago

You ever get the feeling for a flowchart?

Someone please make one.

[–] somethingchameleon@lemmy.ca 5 points 8 months ago (2 children)

I think a solution would be to have instances without communities.

It sucks, but I'm really trying to find instances with the most federation. I'd rather censor things myself than to have some useful idiot do it for me.

"Instance A blocked instance B, so now we have to use instance C to communicate with both." Seems kind of roundabout, which is why I'm looking for the 'ever-C' instance that federates with the most.

[–] Mic_Check_One_Two@reddthat.com 9 points 8 months ago (2 children)

I mean, the real end solution is to host your own server. Then you can federate/defederate with whoever the hell you want. As long as you don’t do anything to get banned from a specific instance, you’ll be fine.

But that’s more work than most people are willing to put into a Reddit clone.

[–] Neopolitan@lemm.ee 1 points 8 months ago

If you're technical enough you can fight or bypass instance bans/defederation

[–] cyberpunk007@lemmy.ca 1 points 8 months ago

Good call, I may have to drop the docker into truenas scale one day...

[–] Croquette@sh.itjust.works 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

The issue is that depending on where the Instance is located can mean that the person is liable for the content on their instance, or at least some corps will try to take them to court over that.

It would be really nice to have something you've described, but then who hosts the community and becomes liable?

[–] somethingchameleon@lemmy.ca 0 points 8 months ago

Someone's always going to be liable, that's unavoidable.

I'm just spitballing ideas for how we can always connect to the servers we want to.

@Mic_Check_One_Two@reddthat.com hit the nail on the head. Self-hosting would be the end goal, but it's too much of a hassle for most people to go through.

So a few servers that exist solely to connect with the fediverse would be ideal for those people.

[–] yessikg@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Are the 4 instances defederated from eachother? If they aren't then you could just have 2 accounts

[–] db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 19 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Best play, run your own instance and federate with whoever you want :D

[–] viking@infosec.pub 6 points 8 months ago

Takes away some of the anonymity though, even with domain registrar obfuscation etc., they'd probably disclose the owner to a request from whatever authority comes knocking. And if you're based in a jurisdiction where piracy is explicitly forbidden, federating with db0 and effectively co-hosting links to prohibited content might open a whole other can of worms. And not everyone is technically competent enough to run and maintain an instance, even if the initial setup works out with one of the how-to's.

[–] Neopolitan@lemm.ee 4 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

and if you're really technical and really want to you can even bypass other people's defederation attempts against you.

[–] JCPhoenix@beehaw.org 2 points 8 months ago

Same. Beehaw is my main, but I also have a Kbin account (which I know is technically different), and then a LW account, which I almost never sign into.

Even my Mastodon account is separate. It's fine this way. I don't need everything on one account. With a password manager, it's not like I have to remember passwords anyway.