Chris Trottier on Nostr: npub1pf0yv…4ura9 I envision a lobby server to be a specialized intermediary within ...
npub1pf0yv6pqkex20k982j3dmyepk7nn8ha3lwwd49vlgwr4qh8uanvsc4ura9 (npub1pf0…ura9) I envision a lobby server to be a specialized intermediary within the federated social media network. It would act as a connector, facilitating communication and content sharing between different social media platforms and #Threads. It would enable users from one platform from Threads to interact with users from other platforms in a seamless manner.
As for how specific federation configuration would work, that’s beyond the purview of this thread.
Nevertheless, here’s a suggestion. A plausible ActivityPub configuration involving a lobby server and Meta could establish a mutual read/write access between the lobby server and Meta, allowing seamless communication and content sharing. In this configuration, servers that do not federate with Meta would provide read access to the lobby server, enabling the lobby server to consume and display their content. However, these non-Meta servers would not grant write access to the lobby server, meaning that the lobby server would not have the ability to directly interact with or modify content on those servers. This configuration ensures that the lobby server can gather and showcase content from a diverse range of non-Meta servers while maintaining the integrity of individual server boundaries and user control over their own platforms.
I don’t know what you’re specifically asking for regarding hosting, nor do I understand what physical proximity has to do with federation itself. But a lobby server’s specific purpose it to promote greater Fediverse access for people who use Meta service.
One purpose in building lobby servers is to create a larger mass that reduces the dominance of Meta. By increasing the number of independent servers within the Fediverse and expanding the overall network, the reliance on Meta’s hardware infrastructure can be diminished. This approach distributes the load across a greater number of servers, reducing the concentration of power and control in the hands of a single entity like Meta.
But the purpose isn’t just to provide a mass of servers. The intent would be for lobby servers to act as strategic intermediaries, connecting diverse platforms within the Fediverse and facilitating seamless communication and content sharing. By bridging communities and promoting interoperability, lobby servers would empower Meta’s users to explore alternative platforms, reducing their reliance on Meta’s ecosystem. Additionally, lobby servers can contribute to a more competitive landscape by showcasing the value and benefits of non-Meta platforms, encouraging user migration and diversification.
As for how specific federation configuration would work, that’s beyond the purview of this thread.
Nevertheless, here’s a suggestion. A plausible ActivityPub configuration involving a lobby server and Meta could establish a mutual read/write access between the lobby server and Meta, allowing seamless communication and content sharing. In this configuration, servers that do not federate with Meta would provide read access to the lobby server, enabling the lobby server to consume and display their content. However, these non-Meta servers would not grant write access to the lobby server, meaning that the lobby server would not have the ability to directly interact with or modify content on those servers. This configuration ensures that the lobby server can gather and showcase content from a diverse range of non-Meta servers while maintaining the integrity of individual server boundaries and user control over their own platforms.
I don’t know what you’re specifically asking for regarding hosting, nor do I understand what physical proximity has to do with federation itself. But a lobby server’s specific purpose it to promote greater Fediverse access for people who use Meta service.
One purpose in building lobby servers is to create a larger mass that reduces the dominance of Meta. By increasing the number of independent servers within the Fediverse and expanding the overall network, the reliance on Meta’s hardware infrastructure can be diminished. This approach distributes the load across a greater number of servers, reducing the concentration of power and control in the hands of a single entity like Meta.
But the purpose isn’t just to provide a mass of servers. The intent would be for lobby servers to act as strategic intermediaries, connecting diverse platforms within the Fediverse and facilitating seamless communication and content sharing. By bridging communities and promoting interoperability, lobby servers would empower Meta’s users to explore alternative platforms, reducing their reliance on Meta’s ecosystem. Additionally, lobby servers can contribute to a more competitive landscape by showcasing the value and benefits of non-Meta platforms, encouraging user migration and diversification.