Server indexes of places for newcomers to join can be instrumental for Fediverse adoption. However, sudden rule changes can leave some admins feeling pressure to change policies in order to remain listed.

  • RubberDuck@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    36
    arrow-down
    19
    ·
    8 months ago

    No way! Little dictators exercising the power they have. But it is their platform, they can do what they want right?

    This is probably the biggest threat to the fediverse.

    • cosmicrookie@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      8 months ago

      They are not threatening the fediverst though are they? Just refusing to promote certain instances for newcomers. When I signed up, i wasn’t really sure what I was signing up to but i did assume that not all instances were listed on that page that talked about them

      • RubberDuck@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        12
        ·
        8 months ago

        Little dictators that have too much prominence and visibility are the threats. If a specific start point gets too prominent a lot of users could be redirected from good instances because of the little tyrants that run such a jump on point. Granted it can be easily routes around by offering alternative entry points, but a certain amount of prominence will impact not so Tech savvy users.

        And in your assumption you have shown you already understand the fediverse more than a lot of people ever will. They will just join an instance and browse /ALL.

    • mosiacmango@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      The above is the core strength of the fediverse. Tinpot despots may have an advantage in the network due to previous efforts, but they can be routed around any time they go nuts.

      This is a huge, huge win over the top down shitbergs that is current corporate social media.

      • RubberDuck@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        8 months ago

        I think this is true, but the fediverse (as an entity) needs to prevent too much power accumulating at one point.

        • mosiacmango@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          It ebbs and flows. Full decentralization would be ideal, but unrealistic. Power always consolidates, until it suddenly doesnt. Making it easy to leave when it “suddenly doesnt” is key.

    • TORFdot0@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      8 months ago

      I am not in favor of transitive property defederation either but Meta will make similar demands if they are allowed to be an influencer in the fedi as well. I’d rather that everyone just decides to defederate threads independently