I think this decentralization and federation is what web3 is all about, without all the corporations calling everything to do with monkey pixel art that costs a million dollars “web3”

  • SanguinePar@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    That’s my concern - that some company buys up some of the most popular instances, then “encourages” their members to concentrate on just one instance, builds up the number of communities on it until it becomes totally dominant and then cuts out all the other instances.

    Not that the others couldn’t just continue, obviously, but if they’re starved of users they’ll be starved of content too and the gravitational pull of the big one(s) might drive the small ones into obscurity or closure.

    BRB, got a business idea…

    • wildbus8979@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      That’s exactly what Apple, Google, and Facebook did to XMPP. They all started with a federated open protocol messaging system. At first iChat users could talk to GChat, and Messenger users, as well as users of thousands of other servers. After they built their network they closed off federation under the guise of “feature development”.

      To this day, iMessage still uses an XMPP based backend. But green text is for Apple users only!

    • blackstampede@lemmy.fmhy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Might seem naive, but I actually have a hard time imagining this. There’s just not a lot to make one instance more desirable than another, which seems like a bad thing, but I don’t think it is. I decided against signing up on lemmy.ml because it was laggy, so I went with a smaller instance- all the same content, but without the lag. If a lot of content gets created on one instance, there’s no pressure to pile in, because you can view, comment and interact from a different, smaller instance.