this post was submitted on 18 Jul 2023
2 points (100.0% liked)

/kbin meta

200 readers
2 users here now

Magazine dedicated to discussions about the kbin itself. Provide feedback, ask questions, suggest improvements, and engage in conversations related to the platform organization, policies, features, and community dynamics. ---- * Roadmap 2023 * m/kbinDevlog * m/kbinDesign

founded 1 year ago
2
Who should 'own' magazines? Federated infrastructure but user sovereignty: a “third way” between federated and P2P networks? (kbin.social)
submitted 1 year ago by Sam_uk@kbin.social to c/kbinMeta@kbin.social
16 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

At the moment the server owner effectively 'owns' magazines & communities. Is that the right balance of power? What happens when servers go offline, or server admins go rogue?

In a world where both users and magazines had public and private keys and magazine moderators had the tools to do off-site backups.

Could the magazine moderator then do an unassisted migration to a new place?

They revoke the key that gives the original server the right to host the magazine. They use the key to re-create it on a new server.

Somehow notify all the members the magazine of the new location. The users use their public keys to reclaim their identities and content.

Would that give mods too much power?

It all gets complicated fairly quickly! I think the Bluesky AT protocol is somewhat close to this model for user content, but doesn't really extend to 'community' scale content.

It falls short of a full confederal protocol

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Sam_uk@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

@JonEFive I think the identity bit is the hard part, as you say most content will be federated/ cached in several locations for retrieval

[–] Sam_uk@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

Have you read https://nexus.blacksky.network/zine/00000001/confederal-protocols similar themes that we're talking about here.

@JonEFive