Does anyone know of any interesting theories on dealing with the federation ownership problem? I'm not looking for "just use fedi" comments, I'm looking for frameworks of reasoning that can be applied to different or new federated systems.
(The federation ownership problem: not everyone is able to maintain a server, so a significant share of users relies on other instances, often public ones because their tech friends do not use the system, but how do you encourage those instances to remain up and running? Especially once people get bored of running them as a hobby)
@joepie91 the answer is peer to peer, isnt it?
i am sometimes so surprised that this isnt obvious. why is that? am i missing something?
@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.
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
@serapath Okay, but I asked about federated systems, not P2P systems.
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