Kalcifer

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/2452085

This is, of course, assuming that the instance is not hosted on the same network that the device your account is using is accessing it from.

This is, of course, assuming that the instance is not hosted on the same network that the device your account is using is accessing it from.

It seems that the main one that I can find is "Thorium", but it's rather rough for actual use. I'm curious if there are any other mobile apps that exist, or are in the works.

I'm aware of Signal's "no log policy", but I'm wondering if such information is visible to the servers at all. I'm assuming "Sealed sender" is what is supposed to protect this information? If so, how effective is it?

EDIT (2023-07-31T22:18:52Z): I have realized that I was not clear in my original intent for this post -- it could be interepereted to mean that I am asking whether or not you could access, for example, Lemmy through the Tor browser. This is not what I meant. What I was more alluding to was if it were possible to create a sort of "hidden fediverse" that was separate from the fediverse over the clearnet. There exitsts, already, Dark Web forums, like Dread, and I wonder if those would benefit more from being federated -- Lemmy seems like a good candidate for this.

Title changes: Added "More specifically, could one make a sort of "Hidden Fediverse"?"

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/2357075

It seems that self hosting, for oneself, a federated service, like Lemmy, would only serve to increase the traffic in the network, and not actually serve the purpose of load balancing between servers.

As far as I understand it, the way federation is supposed to work is that the servers cache all the content locally to then serve to the people that are registered to that server. In doing so, the servers only have to transmit a minimal amount of data between themselves which lowers the overhead for small servers -- this then means that a small server doesn't get overwhelmed by a ton of people requesting from it. Now, if, instead, you have everyone self hosting their own server, you go right back to having everyone sending a ton of requests to small servers, thereby overwhelming them. It seems that it's really only beneficial to the network if you have, say, hundreds of medium sized servers instead of, say, thousands, of very small servers. While there is the resilience factor, the overhead of the network would be rather overwhelming.

Perhaps one possibility of fixing this is to use some form of load balancer like IPFS to distribute the requests more evenly, but I am no where even remotely close to being knowledgeable enough in that to say anything definitively.

It seems that self hosting, for oneself, a federated service, like Lemmy, would only serve to increase the traffic in the network, and not actually serve the purpose of load balancing between servers.

As far as I understand it, the way federation is supposed to work is that the servers cache all the content locally to then serve to the people that are registered to that server. In doing so, the servers only have to transmit a minimal amount of data between themselves which lowers the overhead for small servers -- this then means that a small server doesn't get overwhelmed by a ton of people requesting from it. Now, if, instead, you have everyone self hosting their own server, you go right back to having everyone sending a ton of requests to small servers, thereby overwhelming them. It seems that it's really only beneficial to the network if you have, say, hundreds of medium sized servers instead of, say, thousands, of very small servers. While there is the resilience factor, the overhead of the network would be rather overwhelming.

Perhaps one possibility of fixing this is to use some form of load balancer like IPFS to distribute the requests more evenly, but I am no where even remotely close to being knowledgeable enough in that to say anything definitively.

The most common answer I see is something along the lines of "it's the equivalent of liking a post on twitter". It seems that this is not the case, as the Mastodon devs seem rather adamant that they don't want "likes" in Mastodon. Perhaps it's a method of saving posts? Well, that doesn't make sense either, since there is already the ability to "Bookmark" a post to save it.

It really just seems like a "Favorite" is just a bookmark that tells the poster, and the public that you bookmarked the post. And even if this was the reasoning -- which is baffling enough as it is -- it wouldn't make sense since the whole point of boosting something is to tell the public that you like a post.

It really seems like the "Favorite" button has no actual unique purpose. In my honest opinion, Mastodon should just federate "Likes" like normal, and be done with it.

I can't really find any information on where one would submit a feature request for KDE products -- it seems wrong, to me, to submit them to the bugtracker.

I found this Reddit thread that seems to say that there isn't one, but that post is, as of writing this, 6 years old, so I'm wondering if anything has changed since then?