lrhodes

@lrhodes@beehaw.org

Once upon a time, I was blackstar9000 on Reddit.

See also: @lrhodes

This profile is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.

lrhodes,

At the moment, you have to create separate accounts for each service. It may be theoretically possible to distinguish account hosting from service provision, but at the moment, nearly all accounts are hosted by the same software that provides the service (e.g. pixelfed, peertube, kbin), and no service that I know of allows you to authenticate from a different service.

Bizarroland, to fediverse
Bizarroland avatar

So, I've been trying to utilize other instances of kbin and every single other instance I go to requires a different and unique login. I could somebody explain what I'm doing wrong? I assumed that my identity would be federated and so I could use other instances without a new sign in for each one.

lrhodes,

Identity isn't federated. You can access other instances from your home instance. Just search for the community you want from your home instance, using the !community syntax, e.g. !gameshttps://kbin.social/m/boardgames

lrhodes,

Certainly when it comes to this sort of filing, they're supposed to fulfill a purely administrative function. This the court order.

C8H10N4O2, to fediverse
C8H10N4O2 avatar

Is Tildes a fediverse instance? I swear I read that they are, but I don't seem to see them federating.

lrhodes,

Some people have suggested implementing ActivityPub on Tildes, but it doesn't look they've done so.

lrhodes,

https://writefreely.org/ federates via ActivityPub. Last I checked, it was send only — meaning, your posts will federate to other AP services, but you can't receive messages or otherwise interact with accounts on other services. https://write.as might have more features in that regard.

One workaround is that you can set posts to include a signature with another fediverse handle, like a Mastodon account. Then, when people reply to your blog posts, your microblogging account will get a notification, and you can reply from there.

lrhodes,

Mastodon splits the difference, giving individual accounts a number of tools to mute or block content or accounts, but also providing instance-wide tools to admins and moderators. Lemmy and Kbin are several years newer than Mastodon, so I assume that they'll eventually catch up in terms of moderation tools.

bryan, to fediverse

I’m very new to all of this federated stuff. One question I have is what happens to communities if a server is just taken offline without notice, indefinitely? Say the owner dies or something and they were the sole manager.

lrhodes,

If a server goes permanently offline, then yes, the communities hosted there are just… gone.

The same is true of corporate-owned social media, of course, so the real difference is not impermanence so much as the relative instability of grassroots social media servers. Mastodon has some pretty high profile, abrupt closures over the years, and the solution that's been evolving is to more conscientiously structure instance administration so that there's no one single point of failure. In general, that's meant:

  • Multiple admins with a joint ownership agreement
  • Regular backups to multiple locations
  • A transparent funding structure
  • Clear policies and communication around maintenance
  • A contingency plan in case the server needs to shut down (e.g. six months advance warning)

What I usually advise is that you look for instances that spell all of that out, either on their about page, or on an easily found and bookmarkable secondary page. And if your server offers a way to contribute to funding, that you set up a recurring donation, however small, so that one person doesn't end up footing the monthly bills all on their own.

lrhodes,

"With certain exceptions" = A blanket ban, except for anything that isn't the thing I'm trying to single out.

lrhodes,

It can make sense to have duplicate communities on multiple instances in some situations. For example, if instance A and instance B both have Technology communities, but instance A is defederated from instance C, then that redundancy is valuable to instance C.

There are also ways to reduce redundancy — for example, different rulesets on instance A and B could result in different content in their respective Technology communities. And the questions that show up on each are bound to diverge in some ways.

Ultimately, though, my hope is that admins on the post ranking flank of the fediverse starting looking for more ways to distinguish their instances from one another. Self-hosting presents a number of opportunities that weren't really available on a siloed corporate platform like Reddit. There's no reason, for example, that an admin couldn't start up a Medical instance, and subdivide it into much more topical communities/magazines than you'd find on a "generalistic" instance, e.g. Neurology, Cardiovascular, Podiatry, and so on.

(Just as an aside, Beehaw is a Lemmy instance, so it's not really distinct from Lemmy in the same way that Kbin is distinct from Lemmy.)

Could we have discussion about how to approach toxic moderator behavior (in external instances) (beehaw.org)

To be clear, I have not had any issue whatsoever here on Beehaw. The philosophy that they/we are trying to uphold is admirable and seems to have helped foster and preserve positive and constructive conversation. Of course this isn't going to always be the case, especially on other instances. I have been wondering how the...

lrhodes,

The standard fediverse method for dealing with instances that have toxic or egregiously permissive moderators is to defederate from them. The best thing Beehaw can do along those lines is to have clear, comprehensive guidelines about defederation; enforce them consistently; and be ready to update them when unforeseen variations arise.

lrhodes,

My understanding is that some tech companies overcompensate, not because they're afraid of running afoul of EU regulation, but as a means of pushing back against EU regulation that threatens to undermine their profits. That's often the play when companies like Facebook warn that they'll have to stop offering news in EU countries if a particular regulation passes. I have no doubt that regulation has constricted Google results in some ways (Right to Be Forgotten, for example), but I wonder if part of the disparity isn't voluntary on Google's part, as a means of applying political pressure in a system that's less amenable to direct political lobbying than the US.

lrhodes,

I imagine that having the other parties testify about what he showed them, couple with the audio, would suffice to establish dissemination. It's not clear to me that he would even have to show them. If the audio has him revealing info from those documents, such as the number of troops called for in the attack plan, that may be enough for a guilty charge.

lrhodes,

That data migration item might be a little cost prohibitive starting June 30th.

As for feature enhancement, I agree that Lemmy should be forward-looking in terms of what it needs in order to enhance the service, but I don't know that catering to expectations set by Reddit is necessarily the best path. Reddit evolved to suit the needs of a centralized, profit-seeking service. Not all of the decisions they made along the way were necessarily optimal for users, conducive to strong communities, or even particular good for society as a whole, no matter how much the Reddit userbase has grown to tolerate or even demand them. And, ultimately, I don't think it's healthy for Lemmy to stake its future on its potential as a Reddit replacement. At some point, it needs to chart its own course. The devs should certainly learn from Reddit where they can, but Lemmy can be more than just where Redditors go when they're pissed off at the admins.

lrhodes,

Intent is a pretty big question when it comes to cases like this. When Congress reauthorized the VRA in the 80s, the rewrote part of it to shift the focus to impact. In other words, districting changes that disadvantaged racial minorities has to be changed, even if the impact was unintentional. That's part of why Republicans in South Carolina a few years back felt safe saying, "No, these districts were intended to disadvantage Democrats." The law forbade redistricting to break up the voting block of a racial minority, but not for partisan gain. It just happened to be the case that the Democrats in the targeted district were mostly black.

Focusing on impact, rather than intent, helps prevent that sort of sleight of hand. And, as a result, some Republicans are deadset on shifting back to an intent-based standard, which is far more dificult to prove. Thomas is a notorious opponent of the impact standard—presumably because he believes that structural remedies to racism are just as bad for Black Americans as unmitigated racism. A stance that starts to seem pretty tortured in light of revelations about his relationship to Harlan Crow.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • JUstTest
  • kavyap
  • DreamBathrooms
  • thenastyranch
  • magazineikmin
  • tacticalgear
  • cubers
  • Youngstown
  • mdbf
  • slotface
  • rosin
  • osvaldo12
  • ngwrru68w68
  • GTA5RPClips
  • provamag3
  • InstantRegret
  • everett
  • Durango
  • cisconetworking
  • khanakhh
  • ethstaker
  • tester
  • anitta
  • Leos
  • normalnudes
  • modclub
  • megavids
  • lostlight
  • All magazines
    •