I am sure it was discussed here before, but I can’t find a good way to search this community.

Are there any arguments against having a user’s identity federate, and be compatible across platforms?

For example, let us say I sign up with my instance, matcha_addict@lemy.lol

But what if I go on mastodon, and I want to have my own micro blog. Or maybe go to write freely and post some blog posts. I’d have to make a different account on each one.

What if mastodon or write freely could just let me log in with my lemmy account (or lets call it federated account). This has several benefits:

  • users don’t have to scratch their head on if I am the same person or not across these platforms
  • theoretically, someone following my feed can get updates on what I do on multiple platforms

Now I understand this would be difficult to implement and iron out all the edge cases, but am I missing anything on why it wouldn’t be a desirable feature, given it is implemented?

  • nate@social.trom.tf
    0·
    3 months ago

    @matcha_addict There are very few drawbacks (assuming it’s implemented in a way that doesn’t break things). That’s why it’s part of two of the big three social protocols (Nostr & AT/BlueSky) and Activity Pub might get it soon.

    I’ve written about and participated in discussions about implementing identities not controlled at the instance level and discussed bridges that connect activity pub to other protocols. The one major drawback people tend to bring up is moderation, but moderation is not effected like some people think it could be. Just like a PGP key doesn’t force Gmail to host a user’s email and a domain doesn’t force Dreamhost to host a blog, even if identities are separated from instances an individual instance can still ban a user from participating in that instance or prevent other instances from interacting with your instance. The only difference is that if an instance goes down or bans a user the user can pick up and move to a different instance instead of having their account nuked. As somebody who lost a profile due to a SQL database breaking it would have been really nice to have been able to continue.

    Also, in the thread here I heard a few people talking about it negating communities. We already can communicate with remote servers, I’m not fully sure where the argument that independent-from-instance-identities will break communities comes from. If something like nomadic identities are implemented, which again, they may be, your account will still be largely focused on one instance.

    Say you’re an arborist and join an arborist Mastodon community. You’re still a part of the community, and your account is centralized there until you say otherwise. Yes, you can reply to a lemmy post or peertube post by authenticating on one of those instances, but you can already do that (there’s just a lot of jank since Activity Pub’s monolithic servers often have a hard time understanding each other). Yes, say you reply to a lemmy post about beekeeping that would show up in the local insatance timeline (assuming remotely authenticated posts are allowed to show up in the timeline), but again not only can you already do that, but it’s not like you’d expect an aborist focused instance would have ONLY aborist focused discussions.

    Lol, I hope I was coherent. I just misinterpreted a bottle of bottle of lime infused liquor as 30 proof instead of 30% ethanol so I consumed a little more than I expected. Anyway, regardless, personally consider identities separated from servers/instances a very big pro, with very little drawbacks (if implemented in a way that does not break existing implementations).

    • SorteKanin@feddit.dkEnglish
      1·
      3 months ago

      I don’t think a nomadic identity is the same as an instance-less identity. I could definitely see users migrating from one instance to another but that’s very different from a user not being associated with any particular instance at any given time, which is what I think the OP is suggesting.

      • Jupiter Rowland@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        2·
        2 months ago

        I don’t think a nomadic identity is the same as an instance-less identity.

        It isn’t. (Source: I’ve been using nomadic stuff since long before any of you has even heard of the Fediverse.)

        Nomadic identity always requires one main instance of an “identity container” with a valid Fediverse ID. That Fediverse ID carries in it the domain name of the server on which the main instance of the “identity container” resides. You need something behind the @. The clones have the same Fediverse ID.

        So if you have a Hubzilla channel on hub.foo.social, hub.bar.social and hub.baz.social, one instance of that channel has to be the main instance, and the others are the clones. If the instance of the channel on hub.foo.social is defined as the main instance, it’s hub.foo.social that defines the idea (e.g. bob@hub.foo.social). From a Hubzilla POV, the clones on hub.bar.social and hub.baz.social are bob@hub.foo.social all the same.

        Instance-less would require a fully decentralised, peer-to-peer approach like Briar where (ideally) each user name only exists exactly once. And with no domain name attached to it.

        And peer-to-peer in social networking sounds like an awesome idea until you have to run a full-blown, fully-hardened Web server on your iPhone on a wonky 4G connection, simultaneously sending a message to and receiving hundreds of messages from hundreds of other devices out there because you’ve got, like, 647 connections on your friends list. And then you wonder why your phone is so hot, and the battery craps off within hours.