Yeah, I always wished that Lemmy communities could be decentralized. Moderation, etc. still would work as before, the creator of the community would just give moderator rights to other people, etc.
Yea, increasingly it seems ActivityPub and this fediverse is just a prototype. It’s quite realistic that in 10 years we won’t be looking back on it with huge amounts of praise, apart from proving that this general model can work, which is huge.
I do wonder though, how would moderation work in true decentralisation. Who owns the community should the instance of its creator goes down? I guess user accounts would also be decentralised.
Yup. I'm messing around with decentralized services (e.g. IPFS and Iroh), and I think it would be really cool to have a completely decentralized service like lemmy. Some issues:
- content would be immutable, so there would be no way to truly delete anything deterministically (would be up to clients)
- following from the first, moderation would be an opt-in thing, so clients would need to enforce moderation changes themselves
- performance would probably suck until the network gets bigger, so early adopters would have a rough time of it
- searching could be complicated to implement, I need to think more about it
I think it should be possible to implement the Lemmy API and just use IPFS/Iroh as a storage backend to get started, and slowly push the server bits to the client as the userbase gets bigger.
In Matrix right now the room would be orphant, but there is a longer discussion around this on GitHub https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix-spec/issues/165
The author of this article doesn't know what they are talking about.
First of all it confuses "decentralized" with "distributed". Generally speaking "decentralized" is a broader term that includes "federated", but specifically when talking about where data resides you can well argue that Matrix is less decentralized than Lemmy, as Matrix.org siphons up pretty much the entire network and most accounts reside on matrix.org by a long run.
Secondly, that ActivityPub mandates a single source of truth is a deliberate choice and not a bug. Principally AP could do the same as Matrix as communities are already cached on other instances. The problem is that you end up with extreme netsplit and moderation issues if you allow multiple source of truth in such a network. Matrix tries to prevent this by forcing everyone into a DAG (git like data structure), but this is a hugely inefficient and privacy problematic "solution" to what can be much easier solved by having an main original community that other instances can refer to.
I also think that is is myopic to only look at communities and not the overall network. If the origins of communities are widely distributed over a network, the network itself is decentralized even if individual communities are not.
