Over the past few days, I’ve witnessed a remarkable surge in the number of communities on browse.feddit.de. What started with 2k communities quickly grew to 4k, and now it has reached an astonishing 8k. While this exponential growth signifies a thriving platform, it also brings forth challenges such as increased fragmentation and the emergence of echo chambers. To tackle these issues, I propose the implementation of a Cross-Instance Automatic Multireddit feature within Lemmy. This feature aims to consolidate posts from communities with similar topics across all federated instances into a centralized location. By doing so, we can mitigate community fragmentation, counter the formation of echo chambers, and ultimately foster stronger community engagement. I welcome any insights or recommendations regarding the optimal implementation of this feature to ensure its effectiveness and success.

  • MentallyExhausted@reddthat.com
    0·
    2 years ago

    If the host where the community resides is down, I can still read existing posts, and post and comment with users on my local instance.

    Can you help me understand how that all works? I ran into this today where an instance wouldn’t let me submit due to performance issues, and I jumped instances to be able to provide some (potentially) important breaking news to “community.” If they were fully in-sync and one instance didn’t “own” the community, when things stabilized, my content would have replicated instead of being stranded on a lonely instance. As it stands, that content will never be part of the “real” community.

    But fair enough, I see where you’re coming from. It’s not madness, on-balance it’s just not something I see providing value in proportion to its conceptual complexity.

    Right on. I’m still new to the fediverse and am probably missing some foundational concepts still. Love where it’s headed though.

    • PriorProject@lemmy.world
      0·
      2 years ago

      If the host where the community resides is down, I can still read existing posts, and post and comment with users on my local instance.

      Can you help me understand how that all works?

      I’ll preface this by saying I haven’t read the code and it’s certainly possible there are errors in my mental model, but my belief is:

      1. When the community-instance is up and it gets a post from a user local to the community… It write that data to its db and asynchronously sends federated messages to instances with users that sub the community. Those instances write it to their local DB.
      2. When the community-instance goes down and someone on a user-instence tries to read the post, it gets read from the local-db cached copy.
      3. While the community-instance is still down and user-a on a user-instance posts or comments, again it goes into the local DB and async sends a federation message to the community-instance… the message doesn’t immediately get through though.
      4. While the community-instance is down, if user-b on the same user-instance browses the community, they see user-a’s content from step 3 in the user-instances-db. If user-c on a different user-instance checks, they won’t see user-a’s content until the community-instance comes back up to process the federation messages from step 3.
      5. When the community-instance comes back up, it accepts the federation messages from step 3 and updates all subscribed instances so user-a’s content is viewable everywhere.

      It’s possible I’m mistaken about 3-5, but if you had trouble posting… my guess would be that your own user-instance was struggling and slow. But if you’ve rules that out maybe the update behavior when the community-instance is down works differently than I think it does. The reading in step 2 I’m quite certain about though.

      • MentallyExhausted@reddthat.com
        1·
        2 years ago

        I’m pretty sure you can’t post to community-instance if they’re down/having issues to the local DB. The instance I’m on is very stable and every time I think it may be an issue, it turns out to be the other instance.

        It sounds like a lot of the “sync” behavior I was thinking of is already built-in if we can just expand on it a bit.