•  esaru   ( @esaru@beehaw.org ) 
    link
    fedilink
    English
    21 year ago

    I hear you, but you can’t have the positive effects of decentralization and want everyone on one platform. Also consider that a community of a few thousand members for a specific topic should be big enough for fruitful discussions, so a group of 1 Mio can easily split to a few sub groups without negative effects.

    •  fisk   ( @fisk@beehaw.org ) 
      link
      fedilink
      English
      31 year ago

      I think you’re not entirely understanding what I’m saying - which is definitely not requiring everyone to be on the same platform.

      Instead, what I’m suggesting is to give users control over meta-communities, just as admins have control over instances, and mods have control over communities. This would require that meta-communities could be built by individual users, ideally in a way that they could be shared (but still individually managed) much like a Spotify playlist or GitHub. Users could build their own meta-communities, or “subscribe” to meta-communities curated and shared by others. Additional QoL improvements would be the ability to check a meta-community to determine if a specific user could access/engage with that community, hence the package manager thing.

      In this kind of framework, the broader Fediverse resists echo chambers and fosters diversity by allowing for the creation of instanced communities, while allowing users to determine how posts from those communities are organized and displayed.

      If the Fediverse is taking a stance on the number of instanced communities that an individual should be able to read or participate in, why not make that explicit rather than creating these knee-high barriers?