“I want to see everything” means that I want to see even the places that in theory I have no business being in.

That’s my whole argument, if Lemmy is going to be naturally fragmented and require a new account for every defederated instance, why not just use regular forums at that point?

Because that would be a category error. I want see everything includes all places all the time.

Fair enough if that’s what you would like. But for the rest of us, yes we’re looking for a seamless anti-echo chamber experience, the mirror opposite of Reddit.

Good enough, wise enough.

Because I want to see everything, including lemmy.world.

I am not a troll, I have put my money where my mouth is and hosted my own forum nightash.net, of which I crossposted the article here.

You’re treating federation like it creates fresh users, but it doesn’t. It lets existing users move between communities; it doesn’t guarantee new people will find or join them. Centralized forums can have user turnover too, through visibility and a larger audience.

And the aquarium analogy cuts both ways: if defederation closes the flow between communities, then the ‘oxygen’ isn’t reaching everyone anyway. Calling it a last resort doesn’t change that users on either side can lose access to each other, or that they can’t take their account with them. That’s still fragmentation, just with a nicer plumbing metaphor

What are you talking about? What ‘better user experience’? If defederation means communities disappear from each other, why not just use regular forums? They’re already fragmented. Either way, you can’t use your account across defederated Lemmy instances, so you end up with the same thing as regular forums, just with extra steps.

Because people expect a seamless experience? I don’t want to browse a fragmented platform either, which is kind of the point: if I have to pick an instance, hunt for communities, and hope they federate with the places I care about, what exactly is Lemmy improving over regular forums?

If fragmentation is the feature, regular forums already did that without pretending they’re one platform. You see my point?

Well, personally I’m coming from the angel where I want to see everything first and then judge for my self second.

I have offered counter arguments, insults shouldn’t matter. My reply was not a baseless insult, and I actually replied and counter argued. The person I replied to just put a baseless claim and you expect us to just accept it?

That’s unrelated. Correlation doesn’t prove causation. It’s fair to say you haven’t seen a high-quality centralized forum, but that doesn’t mean one can’t exist.

Either way, I’m pointing to a real issue with Lemmy that you seem to have overlooked: what happens when instances defederate over ideological or other differences?

I’ll give it a look

You are a moron, sorry. Structure is not what makes or breaks a forum. The type of participants does. Lemmy it self kind of sucks because of the type of people that attend it. A good quality forum would avoid popularity anyways.

I have already built my own community. But no one shows up. nightash.net if you’re curious.

You are an idiot. I’ve met some people who have been more than interested to discuss this thing and actually go forward with it. You don’t even understand what you’re reading or what this content is about. Because if you did, and if you did have actual opinions of your own you would post them here rather than signal your conformist mindset.

Do you realize how embarrassing you sound?

The purpose of the article was never to explain the exact operation in detail. It isn’t a blueprint; it’s an advocacy paper. Please don’t read more into my words than I intended. I’m not asking anyone to change anything. I’m inviting people to contribute ideas and help build this project voluntarily, according to their own interests and preferences. Clearly, this isn’t for you.

I’m clearly advocating for an open platform with compatibility in the article.

It isn’t a rare example. That “one example” (which isn’t even accurate) represents one example too many, first of all. Look at the contribution history yourself: you’ll find many cases where changes broke things because the affected code was 7–10 years old.

There’s a reason Windows maintains near-total backward compatibility: a ten-year-old line of code may still be performing essential work, and there’s no inherent need to remove it. Your standards for what qualifies as acceptable deprecation are subjective, but the broader world expects software to maintain compatibility for decades.

This isn’t a forum for throwing quick witted gotchas. I’m trying to have a constructive discussion. at any case, it’s because I’m working to build an open platform with proper backward compatibility, so please engage seriously rather than trolling.