Following the other thread (550 upvotes and 366 comments at the moment: https://lemmy.world/post/16211417), one of the complaints that people had what that some communities only exist on lemmy.ml and don't have alternatives on other instances.

Let's discuss this and see if we can organize together.

I suggest to have one topic per comment so that is is easier to discuss.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] rglullis@communick.news 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (32 children)

Can we make some root cause analysis? Why is it a problem that certain communities are only on one instance?

Or better, why do communities need some relationship to an instance?

[–] imaqtpie@sh.itjust.works 9 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (9 children)

I think decentralization is preferable for a wide variety of reasons, most of which boil down to stability and adaptability.

As for why communities need to be associated with an instance, I think that's a much more interesting question. The first thing that comes to mind is moderation and liability. Ultimately, someone needs to be held responsible if shit hits the fan and somebody hires a contract killing on Lemmy or something. Right now, those people are the instance admins. If you could have free floating communities, the moderators of the distributed community would need to take on that responsibility instead.

Also how would that work technically? Stuff would presumably still need to be hosted and mirrored on instances, even if technically "unaffiliated".

[–] rglullis@communick.news 6 points 5 months ago (8 children)

What I am thinking as a possible solution would be to have some type of "community server", akin to email list servers. The admin of the server becomes a "mere" service provider, and those that create communities are then responsible for moderation and that content being hosted there.

I believe that this would be perfectly possible to implement with Lemmy, so much so that I will add some of this functionality to Fediverser as part of my NLNet grant. The question is: who else would be interested in hosting these fediverser-enabled instances?

[–] Blaze@reddthat.com 4 points 5 months ago (2 children)

The admin of the server becomes a “mere” service provider, and those that create communities are then responsible for moderation and that content being hosted there.

Would you be able to prevent admins to interfere with moderation of the communities? Seems to be the biggest issue here

[–] rglullis@communick.news 4 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Theoretically, any admin would still have access to the server and make changes to things.

Practically, no. Anyone providing this service would be a hosting provider. If something bad happens at the community, they would only be able to claim it's not their responsibility if they are able to point to the actual moderator who is liable.

[–] Blaze@reddthat.com 1 points 5 months ago

Interesting

[–] MacNCheezus@lemmy.today 1 points 5 months ago

If communities were global instead of instance-based, instance mods/admins would likely still be able to moderate posts and comments hosted on THEIR instance (which may be important to confirm to local laws), but they wouldn't be able to moderate the ENTIRE discussion.

There are likely some advantages to this (such as discussion not being able to be stifled by overeager or politically extremist mods), but it would also mean there is no way to globally enforce any particular rule (unless all instance admins agree on it).

load more comments (5 replies)

load more comments (27 replies)