Skip Navigation

Should we decide to have a main fediverse community or should we keep posting everything twice?

Hello everyone,

Opening this thread as a kind of follow-up on my thread yesterday about the drop in monthly active users on !fediverse@lemmy.ml.

As I pointed in the thread, I personally think that having some consolidated core communities would be a better solution for content discovery, information being posted only once, and overall community activity.

One of the examples of the issue of having two (or more) exactly similar Fediverse communities (!fediverse@lemmy.world and !fediverse@lemmy.ml ) is that is leads to

  • people having to subscribe to both to see the content
  • posters having to crosspost to both
  • comment being spread across the crossposts instead of having all of the discussion and reactions happening in the same place.

I am very well aware of the decentralized aspect of Lemmy being one of its core features, but it seems that it can be detrimental when the co-existing communities are exactly the same.

We are talking about different news seen from the US or Europe, or a piece of news discussed in places with different political orientations.

The two Fediverse communities look identical, there is no specific editorial line. The difference in the audience is due to the federation decisions of the instances, but that's pretty much it, and as the topic of the community is the Fediverse itself, the community should probably be the one accessible from most of the Fediverse users.

What do you think?

Also, as a reminder, please be respectful in the comments, it's either one of the rules of the community or the instance. Disagreeing is fine, but no need to be disrespectful.

100 comments
  • I think Lemmy.world should not have 99.999% of communities.

    We can have one fediverse community but it should not be on Lemmy.world. It's already extreamly centralized with almost all users. It should have all communities as well?

    I feel the same about every other duplicate community. Because i actually care about having a decentralized fediverse.

    • .ml also has a lot of active communities though. While I agree .ml is better than .world, feeding any one of these won't be good for decentralization anyway.

      • Completely agree.

        Pushing for https://lemmy.film/, literature.cafe/, https://mander.xyz/ etc. as much as I can, but the established communities usually have the natural inertia working for them.

      • Just picking from those two, but yes, I agree. I would put it on a instance that is below the top 10 instances, and I would do the same for all duplicate communities.

  • Deciding on a single community to rule them all is a bit hard because of defederation - shall we choose .world and we basically remove beehaw users from discussion, and .ml also has their defederation list. Communities like c/fediverse and c/lemmy must be available to everyone IMO.

    • Maybe there should be a dedicated Fediverse discussion instance, federated with everyone, as a kind of United Nations of the Fediverse?

      Moderation could be tricky, but I guess a few people could give a hand.

      • How can we force this instance to federate with everyone though? If we centralize the discussion in a single place, we would put a lot of trust into maintainers of said instance. We can build "backup" instances for that purpose, but that would destroy the initial goal - to have a single discussion place.

      • No, please. Most of the defederations are for a good reason. In !fediverse@whatever I want to read about fediverse, not racist bullshit and spam.

      • An instance dedicated to the Fediverse would be the ideal solution.

        Lemmy in general could use a lot more instances centered around specific topics.

  • I think this is just another variant of FOMO. You don't need to and will never be able to read every fediverse discussion taking place on Lemmy. So just relax, subscribe to what ever community feels more home to you personally and that's it 🤷‍♂️

  • Hey, I'm the guy who started the .ml fediverse community. I started it with the Lemmy part of the network was young, and there weren't many instances yet. It's become a very active community, and I'm constantly amazed to see how much faster things move these days.

    This has kind of been an ongoing conversation in some prior feature request discussions for Lemmy. One idea is that communities could consensually relay posts from one together, effectively creating a group containing Group Actors. This would probably cut down on duplicate content, but could create a larger surface vector for spam. But, I think it's an interesting idea.

    I don't really have a full idea of what the best solution is. A Fediverse-specific instance similar to socialhub.activitypub.rocks could be a really interesting experiment, in that it would try to serve as a "Neutral Zone" between instances while sharing all kinds of news.

    In the end, I don't really have much of a horse in this race. I think cutting down on duplication and redundant communities in favor of a more active shared space would probably have a lot of benefits, there's always going to be independent communities dedicated to the same theme on some far-off server. I'm not really interested in preventing anybody from starting their own.

  • I'm subscribed to four communities named "fediverse@"something. Yes, it's a bit annoying. But it's also good to have backups, in the sense that I never know which instance might defederate from my own or from others who also use these communities.

    Not sure what the point of this post is. Do you want people to vote on which to keep, and which to discard? They already do that. People subscribe and unsubscribe, post or don't, as they please. Apparently, we continuously vote on having four (probably even more) redundant communities.

    • Not sure what the point of this post is.

      I was trying to address a point that is frequently raised by people that gave Lemmy a try but are not planning to stay: seeing the same content posted across a few similar communities hinders content discovery, and just provides a worse browsing experience than centralized solutions like Reddit.

      This seems to be an issue we should probably discuss, as it may prevent growth of the platform if most of the new joiners face it.

      • I was trying to address a point that is frequently raised by people that gave Lemmy a try but are not planning to stay: seeing the same content posted across a few similar communities hinders content discovery, and just provides a worse browsing experience than centralized solutions like Reddit.

        Not trying to be mean, but ... you're making a post about redundancy because other people make posts about redundancy? :D

        In these other posts, a frequent answer is: Reddit isn't that much different. A popular example is /r/gaming or /r/games or whatever. Apparently there are multiple subs for the same topic, sometimes with little to no differences.

        Then some people object "but that's not the same, they have different names", to which others reply "on lemmy, the full name includes the instance, so we don't have same name communities here, either".

        I think, bottom line, the two platforms aren't very different in this regard. On both, users can create new subs/comms even if the exact same content already exists. And they do. Sometimes both survive, sometimes not. On both, users decide "with their feet".

        One relevant difference might be that in the Fediverse, redundancy actually has value. It protects against defederation, unstable servers, servers disappearing.

        I still see value in combining duplicates. When I see a new community popping up, and I know a very similar thing already exists, I might leave a note in the new community wether they might want to participate in the other community instead. Just in case they were not aware it exists.

        But aside from the Fediverse-specific reasons for duplicates, there are additional general reasons, which is why we see the same phenomenon on reddit. For example, people might dislike the moderation in the 'original'. Or one might allow bots, the other not.

        While this is my point of view ("it's a non-issue"), I also note it's a topic which is frequently brought up. Apparently, it's frequently seen as an issue. This may be rooted in perception (including the fact that reddit is monolithic, falsly leading to the misconception it would only have one sub for one topic, all while it still has plenty of redundant duplicates) and communication (I got the feeling the fediverse's federated structure is sometimes over-emphasized and creates more worries than necessary).

        We probably will get technical solutions like grouping on a user-view level. Maybe some apps already have that. GitHub issues exist.

        Aside from technical solutions, people can vote with their feet. It is of course perfectly fine to address and re-address the topic. This might help consolidate similar communities. Personally, I think having a few redundant communities is healthy for the nature of the fediverse.

  • as lemmy grows and or stabilises some communities will get bigger and more mainstream

  • You are advocating for a single point of failure.

    • More like a single point of discussion.

      As I said elsewhere, other communities can be kept as backup if the main one is unreachable or gets compromised.

      That's already what's happening with some communities on Lemmyworld anyway, moderators are moving them to other instances.

  • With all the defederation going on nowadays I'm happy that there are many different servers hosting the same content, otherwise people couldn't participate in the discourse once the one and only server which hosts the community defederates from their server.

  • I envision what you're asking as kinda like IRC. Everyone on the same network (Lemmy) can join the same channel (community) and would be some sort of sync feature for when defederation/instance vanishes (netsplit) happens to re-sync everyone. This would require some sort of trust cert/key or something from each community that wanted to join the conjoined version, as well as to validate they are still the correct community and not a bad actor.

    Not sure how moderation and communities that wanted to leave the whole would be handled though.

    • You're not the first one bringing a technical analogy, someone else mentioned git with merge between instances that would be branches.

      Moderation is indeed the tricky part.

  • Also, as a reminder, please be respectful in the comments, it's either one of the rules of the community or the instance. Disagreeing is fine, but no need to be disrespectful.

    After this needless, patronizing comment I lost interest in discussing the subject with you.

    • Sorry for that, but I got a few toxic comments in my last thread, and would like to avoid that here.

      Have a good one

100 comments