@dansup This was probably proposed, but: what if any...

@dansup This was probably proposed, but: what if any instance could have some setting in it which says that it is ok with being a “general” one. Then, on the onboarding step, a random instance from a list of instances that participate would be selected, with some simple explanation for a user, a button to randomize it from the same list again, and then a link to all instances?

Like 25 January at 9:20 | Wall-to-wall | Open on front-end.social

9 comments

Roma Komarov

@dansup This could alleviate the load, and distribute the users over more instances, with them being able to opt out, and maybe even set a hard limit over how many users they agree to accept when opting in to this?

(Obviously, these instances should be checked to be “ok” and maybe pledge to the “the respectful platforms”?)

25 January at 9:22 | Open on front-end.social

jandi

@kizu @dansup Your idea reminds me of this tiered list of XMPP providers: https://providers.xmpp.net/

25 January at 16:27 | Open on mastodon.social

Emil Jacobs - Collectifission

@kizu I came here to make this very suggestion. Thank you, this should be obvious.

@dansup

25 January at 9:26 | Open on greennuclear.online

Daniel Supernault

@kizu That won't work, people who are not familiar with the fedi want to join the flagship instance with the most trust and reliability.

Using random servers to register on is very dangerous, because not all of them are as dedicated to this as I am, some of them don't update frequently or handle mod reports as fast as we do.

For new people, it's essential we provide them the best experience and server, and few can provide the level that I can, because I'm the developer.

25 January at 9:37 | Open on mastodon.social

Roma Komarov

@dansup Mm, I think maybe we should have a bit more faith in the Fediverse, and other Pixelfed servers? That's why I mentioned the “pledge”, and why I mentioned some moderation over which servers are accepted. Of course, just random servers would be bad from many standpoints.

Not giving an option is saying “all other servers deserve no trust”.

25 January at 9:45 | Open on front-end.social

Alfonso Martínez de Lizarrondo

@kizu @dansup it should be easy to check that once an update is released, all the instances that are in that list update without delays. Regarding the reports, the more people in a single server, the more work it will mean for their administrators.

25 January at 14:45 | Open on mastodon.social

Johannes

@dansup @kizu I think you should at least try to explain it. Mastodon did a good job with that too. Moving between instances should also be a feature with priority. 🙂

25 January at 10:25 | Open on social.kontrollapparat.de

Nico

@dansup how about putting the same dedication in your software, you claim for your hosting? Like proper image support, using out-of-date libraries or a GDPR compliant exporter?

25 January at 10:29 | Open on chaos.social

Jonathan Hartley

@dansup @kizu I adore you and respect all the work you do immensely, but "only I can do it right" does not sound sustainable, or even healthy for the idea of a distributed fedi. We can all agree that a *totally* random server would be unacceptable. But couldn't you pre-select one from a curated shortlist, while still providing the ability for knowledgeable or opinionated users to override that default?

today at 1:58 | Open on mastodon.social