385
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 09 Jun 2023
385 points (100.0% liked)
Lemmy
12609 readers
4 users here now
Everything about Lemmy; bugs, gripes, praises, and advocacy.
For discussion about the lemmy.ml instance, go to !meta@lemmy.ml.
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
In regards to email; the reason people use one of the large providers is that the large providers have taken malicious and aggressive steps to break the ability of smaller providers to talk to them, in the name of "security".
It's not a 'natural state of being' : up until relatively recently you could easily run your own email server (and most businesses and huge numbers of people actually did), but it's been co-opted and broken very thoroughly by Google and Microsoft to their benefit.
With the Fediverse, you probably don't actually want giant servers, as you're just repeating the concentration of users and thus power in the network into a smaller, fewer set of hands.
I'm of the opinion that it's ok and natural for a few larger servers to emerge. The reason why I think it's natural is because normal people frankly don't care about the nuanced benefits about finding an instance that caters to their exact moderation preferences or philosophical pontifications about why Big Tech is bad. They just want to click on funny images, upvote them, and maybe comment once in a while.
I think that's ok since I believe the ultimate goal of social media sites is to serve content for users' consumption in a non-abusive way. The reason why I believe the fediverse is probably better than traditional social media is because it gives the power of choice. That power doesn't need to be executed, but because it's baked into the platform the users always have the ability to exercise it. If a large instance decides to screw over its users, then the users can simply move to another instance and still have full access to the network's content. That power alone is what makes me ok with having few large instances.
I think the differing view here is 'natural growth' vs 'forced growth'.
I don't think large servers that come by being large because they're the preferred choice for a given community, topic, reliability, or whatever other criteria become valuable are bad.
I think setting it up so that a new user is told 'You go here, and you sign up on this instance.' and writing all the onboarding stuff to direct them to the mega-instance for the sake of convenience because we can't figure out how to make it simpler or more clear or explain how federation works isn't the right path.
I will admit I do not have a fantastic answer on how to explain to someone who has limited technical knowledge exactly WHY federation is the way to go for communication and that the instance you should pick relies almost exclusively on the reliability of the service (is it fast? does it stay running? is it going to exist in six months?) and the trustworthiness of the admin (are they someone who you can deal with in terms of moderation? do you trust they're not going to use their access to violate any trusts or behave in a way contrary to your beliefs?).
I'm old enough that my first foray into 'federated' content was Fidonet, and which BBS you called 'home' and posted from was almost exclusively a decision based on the local BBS community and the sysop because the messages and software were otherwise exactly the same from BBS to BBS.
So, my bias is that large instances can't be close communities and that larger instances require different and more aggressive and impersonal moderation and the bigger you get the more true both become.
This is just a false statement; I can email my friends on GMail just fine from my Protonmail account. I think you’re meaning to characterize malicious methods to keep people on the platform, but that issue is orthogonal to getting people registered.
The issue Lemmy has right now is getting normal people registered.
Protonmail is one of the larger providers of email at this point.
If you were to set up your own SMTP server and try to deliver mail, you essentially cannot reliably email any of the larger providers, because they've taken steps to mitigate spam and issues which also makes it impossible to handle your own email anymore, even if the intent wasn't explicitly to break self-hosting.
If you concentrate everyone into larger providers, you're allowing them the ability to gatekeep who can and cannot talk to their users, and most people will either not understand this, or be happy to allow it.
I will admit to some bias in not trusting there to be a 'central' server that's run and maintained with the good of the community in mind because there are endless, endless examples of situations where the owners/maintainers of a service have decided to take actions that are fundamentally against their users best interests - which, of course, is probably why anyone is actually here discussing this in the first place.
Could onboarding be improved? Absolutely. But I really don't think the solution is to have a small handful of blessed instances and try to push everyone to them.
But this isn't true either? I can easily spin up a SMTP server on a homelab, create an MX record, and email my friends with Gmail accounts as if I was emailing from my Protonmail or Gmail account.
I appreciate you acknowledging your bias against central providers, but to be honest I think it's leading to some incorrect conclusions. This discussion is also kind of getting derailed, but I'd be happy to continue debating about it.
Interesting; my general experience (and that of customers I spent time working with doing support for various cloud providers) was that you could, theoretically do so, but 'sending the email to a provider' and 'the provider accepts it and delivers it' were not always the same thing.
Microsoft was especially bad in that it would accept the message, and give you the standard SMTP 'message accepted' response but then silently just drop it in the backend, never to be seen again. Didn't go to spam, didn't land in a filter just... vanished.
Google, at least, had the decency to tell you when it was going to reject your email, but still.
It was always the same dance: you need a PTR, an SPF record, DKIM, etc. but at the end of the day, Google and Microsoft absolutely gatekeep what gets delivered to their platform, so if it's critical that your email shows up reliably every time, you have to move into the "ecosystem" of ESPs and all the hoops that are involved there if you want your message to go to the 'big providers'.