It wouldn't change that, unless the moderators of those communities agreed to merge them by using the same cryptographic identity.
0x1C3B00DA
joined 7 months ago
But public posts federating across the network isn't an "experience". It's the basic functionality of the network.
for profit corporation being able to suck up your posts is probably what has many upset
They can already do that without a bridge. And it doesn't "suck up your posts". It works just like any other instance. They have to search for you and follow you. Then they receive posts going forward, but they won't get historical posts.
I personally would block such a service
Good! You can do that and that is a perfectly reasonable solution. That's part of what has ppl upset on the other side of this argument. All of this arguing and vitriol is happening over a service that you can block like any other fediverse actor.
Super disagree. A community at the protocol level can have just as much character as a community at the network level, but without most of the drawbacks. The "instance as community" idea was always a poor substitute for actual
Group
s. The community shouldn't be a server that users are bound to; it should be aGroup
that has access controls and private memberships (if desired). The moderators get all the same benefits of maintaining a limited community with their own rules, but users aren't beholden to petty drama via instance blocks or defederation.