|
Top-level
@dimillian @ncrav @aral @maegul I'm curious to understand why people (and apps) largely follow this one-account-policy, rather than combining profiles on several (niche and non-niche) servers (and providing a really nice UX around this). I know mastodon (and maybe ActivityPub) is built around different identities in different communities, but why do we have to use it that way? 4 comments
@maegul @dimillian @ncrav @aral mmh. I dislike the idea of aggregating servers simply for the fact that it's another centralized thing. Having different servers represent different communities (in the traditional, offline sense) makes a lot of sense to me. I'm thinking more in terms of one portable, controlled-by-nobody-else, user interface that lets people interact with all these communities.  Yes on the uncentralised options! Except that they'd probably work well in terms of performance and caching etc, and probably wouldn't result in more centralisation than we've seen already from mastodon and mastodon.social. If the software were open, then you could hope/expect multiple instnaces to be run with different focuses in terms of topics/niche-instances and policies around moderating/banning accounts. Also, different UI designs, which would be important! |
Gregory's Server
@cmw @dimillian @ncrav @aral
For me ... **the** question ATM. Many are asking their respective platforms to re-invent everything on every other platform. Apart from being inefficient, it just won't happen.
The killer feature for the fediverse may very well be building out an aggregation layer so that platforms can do their thing and we users can mix & match however we want.
Such may even require new aggregating servers where user accounts actually live??