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?

  • canpolatOPEnglish
    1·
    2 years ago

    Maybe I wasn’t clear enough in my wording. I didn’t mean to say everybody shoukd/must have a single account. And separating identity from content doesn’t necessarily enforce it. Think about crypto wallets. They provide some sort of an identity, but anybody can have an infinite number of them. Now, I’m not saying crypto wallets should replace fediverse identities. I don’t even have one. But, I could log into all fediverse instances with a single account, that would make things much easier for everybody:

    • New comers would just get an identity without stressing over which instance to pick for a handle
    • People who care about their privacy would just create as many identities as they like
    • People who want the convenience of having a single account would get it
    • Those who want a different account for each of their interests (gardening, music, politics) could still do that easily
    • Bruce@lemmy.mlEnglish
      2·
      2 years ago

      Nothing prevents someone from following you on your instance. Knowing the sum of your interests gives me more information than the sum.

      So, to avoid having your profile being made and exploited, you could split account by interests.

      As an example: Someone interested in videogaming and driving Ferraris has a lemmy account he uses to posts on both subjects. Some mar*keting bot wil report “This guy certainly has a high budget for his videogames. Let’s sell him expensive racing games with exclusive Ferrari logos & goodies”. If that person had one account for video games and another one for ferraris, he’d be protected from that.

      But yes, everybody should feel free to use a single wide use account.

      • canpolatOPEnglish
        2·
        2 years ago

        I don’t think what you say contradicts with what I said. If we separate “identity providers” from “content hosts” a person could easily go get as many accounts as they like (just like getting many gmail accounts) and then use them to log in to any content networks they are interested in. I didn’t suggest that everyone should have their own instances of anything.