I (like many people) have been paying more and more attention to distributed social networks over the past several weeks. For the uninitiated, these networks (hereafter referred to as “the Fediverse”) are individual instances running software which communicate with each other over standard protocols (mostly ActivityPub). A user on one instance can follow and interact with users on other instances in a mostly-transparent way, somewhat similarly to e-mail. The general philosophy, I think, seems sound: by decentralizing things, you reduce the influence — and potential damage — of any one entity.

I’m new to fediverse. For a long time I assumed it would be possible to have a single identity separate from the ActivityPub instance I’m using and tried to figure out what am I missing. Recently, I figured out that it was not the case. People generally have multiple accounts for interacting with different aspects of fediverse. It still bothers me a bit. So I did a search and found this note from 2018 that summarizes my thoughts very well.

I’m wondering if there are others thinking about this, or having multiple accounts has been accepted as the “correct” way of interacting with fediverse?

I think separating identity from the instances would really be a step forward, but as I said, I’m new to this and maybe there are things I don’t understand?

  • cynetri (he/any)@midwest.socialEnglish
    1·
    1 year ago

    From my experience, the whole “one account for all platforms” thing is a bit misleading, and mostly applies if you’re trying to, say, message someone on Mastodon from Peertube (I’ve never tried this, just saying as example) so assuming you had no interest joining Peertube, but you did have a Mastodon account, you could still message said person on Peertube (again, only hypothetically, I don’t know if Peertube even has messaging functionality lol)