This is probably the wrong place for this, but is there any intention to have something like super communities, where the same community exists on multiple instances but is treated like just one?

Ie, if you sub to asklemmy on world, you see content from whatever other servers have asklemmy.

  • MagicShel@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    I understand why some folks would want this, but I just don’t. I don’t want to interact with users from e.g. .ml so I don’t go to communities hosted on that instance. But if they were joined in, you’d get the same people in News and Politics regardless of where you go.

    I would pretty much be forced to find or run an instance that federates with exactly the right servers. Even then, I’ll have someone talking about what u/shitfart said in their comment and I won’t have a fucking clue what they’re talking about. Then there are the people caught in between who see everything and wonder why people are talking like they don’t see one another.

    It would just be an absolute shit show. My instance is having some federation problems right now and I’ll see someone say “I’m jumping on the bandwagon” but there is literally no one else [that I can see] who is taking about what they just said.

    I totally get why this would seem to be a good idea, but I don’t like it.

    • RagingHungryPanda@lemm.eeOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 days ago

      I was thinking the community could show you which ones it federated with and you could have a selection for which ones you want. Something like

      This community federated with:
      .ml | hexbear | .world

      • [] .ml
      • [X] world
        (I can’t get check boxes right)

      But that’s more of an implementation thing and could be done client side

    • GBU_28@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 days ago

      The way I’d want it would be user built super communities. Like, I decide what groups to conglomerate…and no one else is the wiser.

      • MagicShel@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        It would be great to implement client side. I just don’t know how the comment system would work. Do you post to 4 communities all at once? Obviously moderation issues if it’s a single comment linked to 4 servers, but if it’s not then people who don’t have a client that combines duplicate comments on duplicate communities would see a bunch of garbage spam.

        I guess I’m not saying it’s inconceivable that this feature could be done well, but the obstacles seem really tall. I can’t even imagine how I would implement this.

        • GBU_28@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          2 days ago

          Good points. I’d make it totally client side so my actions with the fediverse are atomic and normal. At most I could specify which community in my supergroup the post will land on, but on the intake direction, I have one stop shopping for multiple communities. When I enter a post and comment on it, it acts like any other. The core premise is client side aggregation, not server side multiposting or anything

          Edit I will say it is annoying when you see someone shotgun every similar community across the fediverse with their post, just trying to get it seen. I do not believe my client side grouping helps with that at all. Some sort of dedupe would be required, and thats scope creep