• u_tamtam@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    yep. And as an XMPP networks op, I wish we had figured-out the technical measures to avoid it in the meantime. Practically, it boils down to preventing a single actor from consolidating a “greater than X” share of the network, while retaining the desirable aspects like “promoting the better services for the most users”.

    • tatterdemalion@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I have had similar thoughts about breaking monopolies in the Fediverse. Similar to a multi-national alliance, it should be possible to have federation-wide agreement that one instance population cannot grow beyond a certain share of the whole, the consequence being defederation. And I think that would include limiting each admin to a single instance within the federation.

      I only fear this rule would be too harsh in practice and penalize the wrong enthusiasts.

      • u_tamtam@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Such an alliance could be the achieved organically by listing-out instances passing a certain set of requirements, like: https://providers.xmpp.net/ , and constraining new joiners to route their account creation through it. But several aspects of this consist of undoing major benefits of decentralization/federation. There’s no free lunch :)