To elaborate: The problem with commercial aggregators like Reddit, Twitter/X, Facebook, etc. is enshitification, for one reason or another. Of course, Lemmy, etc. on the Fediverse is the alternative solution, seemingly. But let's say that the hardware for a large Lemmy instance just disappears. What happens to all of the posts? Yes, old posts will still be available for a while on other instances. But, seemingly, there won't be any more updates. How is this addressed?

Moderators would of course be interested in continuing but they may not have the skills and resources to set up the hardware.

Instances/servers can disappear for many reasons: retirement, illness, confiscation, war, bungee jumping or parachuting accident, ... the list goes on.

top 11 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 year ago

I read a proposal for the ActivityPub spec for shared groups. It means that a group can essentially be hosted from two instances together. But AFAIK the proposal is not yet approved and it needs to be implemented in lemmy for it to work. Right now a community is gone if the instance is gone.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

There is none, except for server mirrors. But most admins don't bother with that. The ultimate solution is to host your own instance. You can do that because the source is available.

But what's the solution to investors dumping reddit, Elon running X into the ground, etc? Not only is there not one, but Reddit hasn't been open source for years, and the only thing that's been opened with X is its recommendation algorithm.

[–] Aux 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Your own instant doesn't solve anything.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It does somehow, because you are responsible for keeping it online

[–] Aux 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So what do you propose exactly? That everyone just moves to your own instance? That won't work.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I'm not talking about users, but communities.

In summary, if you really want to make sure that your communities are well managed, host them on your own instance.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Host on your own instance until you die unexpectedly from a heart attack at age 42.

Now your [email protected] community with 2 million subscribers isn't available to anyone. Because you're dead and didn't pay your server bill.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago

This was oddly specific 🤔

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

You set up an long lasting organisation to manage the server. Such servers such as Lemmy.sdf.org are such examples.

[–] Aux 1 points 1 year ago

Yeah, that's the problem :)

[–] tpWinthropeIII 2 points 1 year ago

Thanks for the replies. So I guess USENET had/has an advantage here, as all USENET servers replicate "all" newsgroups automatically. To the extent that one server exists, the newsgroup lives on regardless of its origination point. In that sense, the collective work of all contributors is not lost until the retention date passes.

The ActivityPub proposal mentioned by @chris seems to be a good enough equivalent, at least for communities that are shared.