I have a number of Lemmy instances meant for discussion groups around specific topics. They are not being as used as I expected/hoped. I would like to set them up in a way that they can be owned by a consortium of different admins so that they are collectively owned. My only requirement: these instances should remain closed for registrations and used only to create communities.

  • Grimy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 hour ago

    It seems kind of slimy.

    If you don’t want the communities, stop squatting them. Having no users seems like just a way to keep costs down to you can hold onto more urls and is bad for the general ecosystem anyways.

    • rglullisOPA
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      43 minutes ago

      It’s amazing, there is always someone that will look at other people are doing and find the worst possible take.

      I decided to reach out to other admins precisely because I got tired of hearing “you are running all these instances by yourself, who guarantees that you are not going to do something nasty with them or disappear if you lose interest?”, even though I’m running all these instances by myself, keeping them up to date, posting regularly on a good number of them, trying to get more people involved for over an year and (most importantly) outliving a bunch of “community-based instances” .

      Seriously, this crab mentality is the worst. What a disgrace.

  • gedaliyah@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 hour ago

    I think there may be a challenge or challenges that you haven’t pinned down yet. First is: what problem does this solve?

    Second is, how will people know that they are housed under the same roof, so to speak? A small instance dedicated to NBA basketball may be interesting, but if it seems disconnected then people would be wary. Small specialty instances can be shut down without warning for all sort if reasons.A consortium of instances may help with this issue, as long as it is immediately clear through common branding that they are part if the same group.

    Third is that different communities have different needs.

  • Rentlar@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    2 hours ago

    I think this idea is good. I remember seeing those domain names last year. At the time it seemed muddy and uncomfortable to me, since there was a whole scheme of Reddit ghost accounts posting, while I understood there were good intentions behind it, mirrored posts were flooding users’ All feed to the point I started blocking a bunch of subs, and many admins defederated.

    If we can promote the community first approach where the domain is the space for discussion to be held and stored, with users connecting from across the Fediverse, this would be excellent, a good alternative to massive centralized Lemmy servers. Collective ownership would ensure preservation of content if one or more go offline.

  • SorteKanin@feddit.dk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    5 hours ago

    I personally am not a huge fan of this idea. Instances are at the end of the day communities of their own in a way. One community may want to discuss a topic in one way and another community may want to discuss it in another way. This seems to be a way to centralize all discussion around a topic in one community, but we should rather go for decentralized communities.

    But hey that’s just my opinion, if others like it, go for it.

    • rglullisOPA
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      4 hours ago

      You are running an instance that is geared to serve people of an specific region. And I agree that they kind stay between the two extremes of the “group-focused” and “people-focused” instances.

      The idea of topic-based instances are for the cases where the culture is more-or-less universal, but it doesn’t mean that they should be absolute. So, if you want to talk about Apple stuff in general, !apple@hardware.watch would make more sense, but if you are trying to reach a group of Apple users in your area, then you can have a community on your local instance as well.

      • SorteKanin@feddit.dk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        3 hours ago

        for the cases where the culture is more-or-less universal

        When is this ever true? The idea of a “universal culture” is exactly what I mean with this encouraging centralization. Even a specific community (subreddit) on a centralized service like Reddit will have a specific culture that is not in line with any “universal culture” (it’s likely to be skewed towards whatever culture exists in western english-speaking countries, just to mention an example).

        • rglullisOPA
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 hours ago

          I don’t mean universal in the sense of “totalitarian”, I mean it in the sense of “large common denominator”.

          Do you think that the conversation around, e.g, python programming or wood turning techniques will vary so much that it warrants many specific flavors?

          it’s likely to be skewed towards whatever culture exists in western english-speaking countries

          This is good enough for most people and does not hinder the ability of those that are in the minority to create a different/specialized community.

          Centralization/decentralization is a spectrum. No one is proposing to force everyone into a single box. The idea is only to combine efforts for the things that exist in common and to avoid unnecessary redundancies.

          • SorteKanin@feddit.dk
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            3 hours ago

            Do you think that the conversation around, e.g, python programming or wood turning techniques will vary so much that it warrants many specific flavors?

            I don’t see why not. Human culture is like a fractal after all :P. At least I don’t think we should discourage creating different places for the same topics, because different approaches is part of decentralization.

            • rglullisOPA
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              3 hours ago

              At least I don’t think we should discourage creating different places for the same topics

              I’m not discouraging it. To repeat: the idea is not to push a “there can be only one” mentality, but to set up a system that can work well for the 80% of people who can be satisfied with the median case.

  • aasatru@kbin.earth
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 hours ago

    I think this sounds like a good idea. A problem when starting a community is that one wants to find a stable home; it might make sense to set up camp at, say, hardware.watch, but without knowing who operates it it might feel more uncertain than lemmy.world.

    And then, as a result, if lemmy.world ever disappears or has problems, it’ll take way too many communities with it.

    If these topic-specific instances had some sort of collective ownership, I guess we could more effectively guarantee for their continued survival, and it might be more tempting for existing communities to move over there.

    I’d be interested in hearing the thoughts of some admins - would !football@lemmy.world be interested in moving to !football@soccer.forum, given the right organization?

    And a piece of constructive feedback: Vague community names like !main@soccer.forum is probably less likely to attract attention than something specific like !nba@nba.space - when searching for a community, people look up the community name rather than the domain.

    • rglullisOPA
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      5 hours ago

      Yeah, I realized the issue with “main” as the name after the second time I wanted to post something and realized that the domain name is not used in the search field. I’ll suck it up and just create a new community.

  • Remy Rose@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 hours ago

    I don’t run any instances, but that does seem potentially like a pretty neat idea.

    I am really curious about the unexpected behaviors of your instance members though! What are they doing, just treating it as a general instance and not really engaging with the local theme?

      • Remy Rose@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        60 minutes ago

        I assumed, by “They are not being as used as I expected/hoped.”, that the OP was implying, "- by the members of said instances". And that the closed-registration bit was part of the proposal, not the existing state of affairs. I didn’t realize their instances were already closed-registration.

        Ah, I see. I misread a bit. I thought they were being used differently than expected, not less than expected.

    • rglullisOPA
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 hours ago

      I am not sure what “instance members” you are referring to, here.

      The topic-based instances are closed for registration, so there are no users there.

      If you are referring to the communick.news instance: it is only configured to have admins creating communities on it and the general instructions are to use https://fediverser.network as the place to discover communities.

  • infeeeee@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    5 hours ago

    If a moderator is from a different instance, can they effectively moderate? So isn’t it a problem if all moderators would be from different instances?

    I remember after the exodus community discovery in Lemmy was hard, and it made sense to create instances like these. But nowadays with Lemmy Explorer and with multiple community promo communities I think it’s not really hard to find the topics you are interested in.

    • rglullisOPA
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      5 hours ago

      If a moderator is from a different instance, can they effectively moderate?

      Yes, I haven’t had any issue moderating things from communick.news, even on communities that are not here.

      But nowadays with Lemmy Explorer and with multiple community promo communities I think it’s not really hard to find the topics you are interested in.

      This approach does not address two issues that would be resolved by separating “community instances” from “people instances”:

      1. Centralization of communities around the big instances, creating a “too big to fail” scenario. Last I checked, more than half of the top 100 communities are on LW.
      2. Political/Ideological differences among larger instances causing needless fragmentation of the communities. E.g, there were discussions before about moving communities from .ml because some people didn’t want to be associated with the Lemmy devs. Some were in favor, some were against. By having the communities on neutral ground, not only this whole issue is sidestepped, it also makes it easier for both sides of the table to be able to join one single community and make the overall fediverse stronger.
      • Blaze@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        4 hours ago

        Yes, I haven’t had any issue moderating things from communick.news, even on communities that are not here.

        Reports still do not federate, that’s the main issue with federated moderation

      • infeeeee@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        5 hours ago

        I don’t like this kind of community/user instance because 2 instances have to deal with the same problem. E.g. a rogue user can troll on most community instances until they are banned by their user instance.

        The instance fragmentatios is not as big issue as it’s quite easy to create new accounts. There was a thread about this some days ago here, I also use different accounts on different instances for different topics.

        • rglullisOPA
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          4 hours ago

          I understand your concerns with moderation, but I don’t see how what I am proposing would make things more difficult?

          What would stop a troll to create different accounts on all the other different instances, or create another account whenever they get banned?

          • infeeeee@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            2 hours ago

            but I don’t see how what I am proposing would make things more difficult?

            Now when a user reports a troll, the report goes to the moderators of the community. But in special cases the admins of the user instances should deal with banning. So the admins of the community instances have to deal with reports, but the solution is at the hand of the user instance admins. It’s the same as dealing with users from other instances, but an edge case.

            My recommendations would be something like this: (I’m just a random user, so it’s just my point of view)

            • Shut down the fully inactive instances. Noone will even even notice it
            • Merge the semi active communities to a handful of instances, like sports and technology… . I’ve seen active communities move instances, it would be possible, take a look how !europe@feddit.de migrated to !europe@feddit.org. Give enough time for subscribers to notice and subscribe to the new one.
            • Allow registration of moderators on these instances, so they can work around the current limitations of moderation tools. Maybe an invite only solution or something like this.
            • You could find help more easily if you look for admins for 3-4 instances instead of for 18 instances.

            This would be useful for you and other admins, because you would have to admin much less number of instances. They would be still considered small instances, compared to big one, so you still not at the “too big to fail” level. For users it would help community discovery, there are overlap between followers of similar topics, e.g. I have friends who follow both European football and NBA at the same time, I read both selfhosting related topics and about general tech support, etc…

            • rglullisOPA
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              2 hours ago
              1. I am not planning to close any instances. I am not working on them based on their current activity, but I am keeping them for a scenario where a mass migration away from Reddit actually happens.

              2. When I say admins only, that can be extended to moderators as well.

    • Object@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      5 hours ago

      I would assume the “rendezvous” instance would collect all posts from all communities it is subscribed to, and show them to the users as if it came from a single instance. So moderation would be limited to the moderators of the actual instance behind it.

      The explorer makes it easier to discover them, but would be even better if that’s automated.

      • rglullisOPA
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 hours ago

        “rendezvous instances” is a perfect term for them…