The Nexus of Privacy@thenexusofprivacy@infosec.exchange
This is something I continue to think about a lot. I thought changing the default was a bad decision at the time and haven't changed my mind! It's not just the centralization aspects of it; it's also that (based on retention rates) most people don't have a good experience on .social -- so they wind up leaving fedi.
Rotating the default doesn't seem to me like it would address the :"good experience" aspect of the problem. For most people who are looking for a Twitter-like experience, .social's as good an approximation as anywhere else in fedi -- not great, but other instances aren't any better. And for people who are looking for a local community that aligns with their interests or geography, they're not going to find it on other largeish open-registration instances (and it doesn't make sense to have anything but a largesish open-registration instance as the default).
@julian@fietkau.social
@FediTips@social.growyourown.services @UlrikeHahn@fediscience.org
Julian Fietkau@julian@fietkau.social
@thenexusofprivacy@infosec.exchange @FediTips@social.growyourown.services @UlrikeHahn@fediscience.org Yes, exactly on point. The best case scenario for the Fediverse is a rough alignment of servers with cohesive communities, because if the community matches the infrastructure, that's good for moderation, long-term stability, and the day-to-day experience of each individual. A default server can't provide that.
Ideally, everyone would join fedi by being invited to a well-moderated small-to-medium server by a friend.
