Any arguments against separating identity from instance/platform? (single identity across the fediverse) (lemy.lol)

submitted 2 months ago by matcha_addict@lemy.lol to c/fediverse@lemmy.world

66 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] JupiterRowland@sh.itjust.works 2 points 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.

[-] SorteKanin@feddit.dk 1 points 2 months ago

How does Hubzilla work? I haven't really heard much about it, just heard the name.

[-] JupiterRowland@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 months ago

I hope this Join the Fediverse Wiki article can help you. I've written it myself.

It's mostly written to pick up Mastodon users who don't know much about the rest of the Fediverse, so it doesn't really explain how Hubzilla relates to Lemmy. I hope it helps anyway.