this post was submitted on 20 Dec 2023
45 points (84.6% liked)

Fediverse

28499 readers
338 users here now

A community to talk about the Fediverse and all it's related services using ActivityPub (Mastodon, Lemmy, KBin, etc).

If you wanted to get help with moderating your own community then head over to !moderators@lemmy.world!

Rules

Learn more at these websites: Join The Fediverse Wiki, Fediverse.info, Wikipedia Page, The Federation Info (Stats), FediDB (Stats), Sub Rehab (Reddit Migration), Search Lemmy

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Disclaimer

I‘m not asking if you want to federate or not and why. The question is if a defined ruleset would make it more transparent for everyone and more future proof.

Since we are seeing major divides due to the (de)federation of threads and now the federation of flipboard, we might wanna discuss future rules so to not fight about everything.

I can see arguments for both sides but some of the technical ones are more compelling since peeps who are unhappy can always move, an overextended instance will have to close. So I‘d take this as the basic principle:

  • no federation with instances bigger than half the fediverse (arbitrary number, could be no bigger than all of it as well)
  • no federation with instances that push ads with their posts
  • no Federation with instances that use altered versions or proprietary versions of AP.
  • no one way federation

These are obviously just ideas. There are several „unions“ of instances already that implement more or less of these ideas but I think its something that should be discussed instead of just yes or no.

Also, I‘d suggest we make such rules permanent as in if any instance changes in this way, it gets auto defederated.

This would make interaction more clear and easy for users to choose their instance. For example, If someone wanted the possibility of twitter federating, they‘d not go to an instance that has this ruleset.

Any other ideas?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] farcaller@fstab.sh 12 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

no Federation with instances that use altered versions or proprietary versions of AP.

It's especially funny given (the last time I checked) neither kbin nor lemmy actually followed the spec properly. They ignore the jsonld requirements and resort to field names, that, by the spec, should be dropped.

Edit: lemmy is actually good now!

[–] nutomic@lemmy.ml 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)
[–] farcaller@fstab.sh 3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

But lemmy doesn’t use “plain json”, it annotates some fields with the schema, just not all of them, which makes it a mess. You either do json-ld proper, or you don’t do it at all.

[–] nutomic@lemmy.ml 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

All of the fields should be defined in context. Which one do you think is missing?

[–] farcaller@fstab.sh 3 points 11 months ago

I took a look at the current traffic and you’re absolutely correct, lemmy (as of 0.19) has a proper schema with everything covered!