@runaway_anarchist They're reasonable directions, though all of them have their own issues, which make the problem complicated:

1. There's going to be a significant set of people who simply will never have any interest in running a server themselves, because they have other things in their life, regardless of how easy it is. So some delegation is necessary.

2. In theory, yes, but in practice a server is a trove of private data - historically fedi instances have shut down instead of changing ownership, for example, because admins feel that it's not their place to hand over people's private information to some new person without their consent (which would be difficult to obtain at larger scale).

3. It could be, as long as you trust everyone involved (see above); the more difficult problem is how you *ensure* that there is someone around to deal with the problems at all times, because at least judging from how federated networks have worked so far with current tech, that doesn't happen organically.

None of these are automatically unsolvable problems, to be clear, and they are avenues worth exploring! But more detailed solutions are probably going to be needed to make them work in practice, and that's what I'm looking for :)

@KuJoe Unfortunately Cloudflare's 'solution' is not really a solution to the problem; it pretty much boils down to "centralizing the network on their infrastructure, and that would lose the core property (and benefits) of a federated network.

@KuJoe (It's also not quite true that it was shut down due to backlash; they pushed ahead with it *despite* backlash, and then when they lost interest a few months later, they quietly stopped updating it and eventually archived it, with no migration path)

@joepie91 I didn’t say it was a good solution, but it was an attempt at a solution. If somebody else could implement something similar but not reliant on a specific platform then that would be a good solution. The core of their project was a good solution, just implemented in a way that didn’t benefit the Fediverse.

@KuJoe That's the thing, though, they didn't actually do anything new - "something similar but not reliant on a specific platform" would essentially just be Mastodon as it exists today (or, if being generous, a version that runs in IaaS environments specifically).

But it never really solved the problem of "you need to maintain a server" at all, it just changed the shape of "server" from "standard Linux environment" to "Cloudflare-specific environment", which is the usual trick of IaaS providers to make things look superficially easier and hide the complexity. Notably that always blows up in the long term.

The closest thing to a solution that actually does what Wildebeest *implied* it would do, is managed Mastodon hosting - but that crucially costs money, enough that it's not accessible to a good chunk of people. It's also a very individualistic model.

@KuJoe (I also have very strong doubts about it ever having been a legitimate attempt at a solution, as opposed to an attempt at gaining control over the network; Cloudflare has a very long history of superficially neat technical things that somehow always conveniently benefit their position of power within internet infrastructure, so I do not remotely trust their intentions)

@serapath It's "obvious" only in the sense that it removes one specific question ("where do I host this?") from the equation, but in turn it introduces a whole new set of problems (availability, backups, etc.) that are often even more difficult for people to deal with - it's not really an organizational model for federation, as it is a totally different model entirely.

@joepie91

yes, availability, backups, etc...

But
1. you can follow/unfollow/moderate/etc... and the connections between peers more organically build.the community clusters, groups and structures just like they could in the fediverse, but fediverse forces arbitrary constrainta on community based in instance borders
2. anyone could run a relay or rather peer who backs up data from a network of peers to keep it available - essentially not different from fediverse, where instance admins do it

@joepie91

good thing is, now somebodys data can be backed up and kept available server independent... every "p2p instance operator" is an additional backup and it only requires one of the many to have the data to stay available.

also, if an instance crashes, it can sync back content from other instance admins easy peasy 🙂

@joepie91

finally when it comes to moderarion, you get everything fedi gives you ...you can select a moderator you trust (e.g. as prototyped in dat project https://cabal.chat) or you opt to be your own moderator blockign/muting/following/unfollowing/etc... as you please)

There is nothing missing

@serapath Okay, but I asked about federated systems, not P2P systems.

@joepie91

yes, but it solves the ownership problem.

maybe the problem you describe is inherent in the fedi solution approach?

i so dont understand why ppl just dont try to embrace peer to peer 🤷‍♀️ ...why would it matter that the solution *has* to be "federated"?

peer to peer is maximum federation. everyone has their own server and solo instance.does that count?

@serapath Because P2P systems have their own problems, which I do not intend to relitigate here right now, and I am trying to explore the federated systems space, which doesn't have those problems. Which is why I asked specifically about federated systems and not P2P systems.

I have to be honest, I'm getting a bit tired of the way you respond to these kinds of conversations, because you often seem to be far more interested in pushing your personal preferences than in actually engaging with the topic presented. This is replyguy behaviour and it is neither wanted nor helpful. And it's far from the first time.

When someone sets the parameters of a conversation, like specifying that this is about topic X, you really need to stop trying to change those parameters by being pushy about topic Y instead. I get it, you are more interested in topic Y, and that is fine. But that is not what I asked about and it is not relevant to the conversation I am trying to have.

@joepie91 alright fair enough.

i do think the problem cannot be solved in a fediverse context. thats my result of exploring. and the exact motivation why i started looking at peer to peer and am now very excited about the state of it.

...but sure, explore for yourself. i am curious what others will say. cheers and sorry for sharing what i found to solve it - didnt know the to my mind - arbitrary restriction you want to put on the conversation.

sorry then