Fediverse

28490 readers

353 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

Posts must be on topic.
Be respectful of others.
Cite the sources used for graphs and other statistics.
Follow the general 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

ruud@lemmy.world

Xylinna@lemmy.world

MrCenny@lemmy.world

TragicNotCute@lemmy.world

automodbeta@lemmy.world

woelkchen@lemmy.world

Any arguments against separating identity from instance/platform? (single identity across the fediverse) (lemy.lol)

submitted 2 months ago by matcha_addict@lemy.lol to c/fediverse@lemmy.world

66 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I am sure it was discussed here before, but I can't find a good way to search this community.

Are there any arguments against having a user's identity federate, and be compatible across platforms?

For example, let us say I sign up with my instance, matcha_addict@lemy.lol

But what if I go on mastodon, and I want to have my own micro blog. Or maybe go to write freely and post some blog posts. I'd have to make a different account on each one.

What if mastodon or write freely could just let me log in with my lemmy account (or lets call it federated account). This has several benefits:

users don't have to scratch their head on if I am the same person or not across these platforms
theoretically, someone following my feed can get updates on what I do on multiple platforms

Now I understand this would be difficult to implement and iron out all the edge cases, but am I missing anything on why it wouldn't be a desirable feature, given it is implemented?

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

[–] ada@lemmy.blahaj.zone 10 points 2 months ago (15 children)

We host instances for trans and gender diverse folk, to provide a space that explicitly puts their safety first.

Take away the idea of an instance as a community/identity/distinct space, and the goal for these places existing is gone. Instead of a community and a safe space, we become a generic bit of hardware that enables transphobes as much as trans folk.

That's not something I'd be keen to keep sinking my own funds in to to support.

What I'd much rather see is instance based accounts, however, with the ability to take over/migrate them from other instances, so that if an instance goes down, people can still keep their identity. It would also allow instances focused on protecting minority communities to keep doing that.

[–] matcha_addict@lemy.lol 4 points 2 months ago (3 children)

This is a very valid concern and I should clarify a bit about the mechanism I have in mind.

An instance admin can decide which instances it federates identities with, similar to how regular federation is done (but maybe these would have separate lists)

So, in your case, you would only federate identity with instances you trust to have done proper vetting. It wouldn't be by default that having a federated instance means you have access to login the entire fediverse.

[–] ada@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 2 months ago (1 children)

White listing encourages centralisation because it makes it really hard for new communities/instances to develop the trust they need to be included in existing white list circles.

[–] matcha_addict@lemy.lol 3 points 2 months ago

This white listing will not impact regular federation, so smaller communities will still get the same benefit they get now. They will only not get identity (for logins) federation until they gain trustworthiness

load more comments (1 replies)

load more comments (12 replies)