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

    • JonEFive@kbin.social
      0·
      1 year ago

      True. It makes me at least think about what other options there are in terms of resiliency for user accounts. Right now we’re back to the wild west days of the internet where you might not be 100% sure that your provider is in it for the long haul. There were so many random email hosts in the 90s and early 2000s with vanity domains. Now, it’s rare to see anything other than Gmail, outlook, iCloud, or hotmail for personal emails. People congregated around the big companies. That’s what worries me about companies like Meta and Twitter getting into the fediverse