a. Upon signing up for the a platform on the Fediverse the user would be redirected to the "Create your Passport" You would create your unique username. Once signed up you would then have an account on every platform connected to the Fediverse.

b. If someone friends/follows you on one platform they would automatically follow you on all platforms. Insuring that communities and friends could stay connected across platforms.

c. The passport for the user would show your feed on all platforms and allow you to selected which platform you want to see your feed from, also allowing you to directly search your content so you could find a post for whatever reason you need.

d. For the subscriber it would show them your feed and allow them to easily find your content.

e. Tons of customization options including the ability to monetize and or set a subscription fee for the video, blogging, and other "arts" platforms.

Safe Guards

You would be allowed to set your privacy setting to, Public, Subscribers Only, Approve Subscribers, Mutual Friends only, Private (Requires link)

Benefit

Would allow stream less interaction across the whole Fediverse and really get it going. No more having to create a different account on each platform and now you can claim an identity and keep track of your communities, also each site would directly help "advertise" the others.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] ada@piefed.blahaj.zone 12 points 23 hours ago (2 children)

A passport in the way described here doesn't need to be centralised. Your profile could link to your other profiles through metadata, rather than a centralised system.

[–] WatDabney@lemmy.dbzer0.com 14 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

And further - the establishment of a single, fediverse-wide account for each user would make it far too easy for those so inclined to silence anyone they wanted merely by banning their one and only account.

[–] Sackeshi@lemmy.world 2 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

It could have several even as many as 100 different people with part of the key to access the center point for the passports so that any decisions would have to be unanimous and would keep things purely being monitored for technological updates.

[–] WatDabney@piefed.social 9 points 20 hours ago

Centralization under 100 people is still centralization.

The key to the fediverse is that there is NO central authority. Not a purportedly limited or constrained or distributed one but none at all, in any way, shape or form.

And we want to keep it that way.

[–] WatDabney@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

It's not a matter of how ones profile would be accessed, but how it would be created in the first place snd how it would be managed.

Necessarily, those who implement the creation of accounts have control over how they're created, who is allowed to create them and how they will be handled after creation.

Any scheme to establish one "central" (your own term) account for the entire fediverse will necessarily be managed by one "central" service, which means one "central" authority over account creation and management

[–] ada@piefed.blahaj.zone 8 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

I'm not the OP.

And no, a central account doesn't require a central service, it just requires amendments to the protocols to allow for a decentralised identity. Nostr, bluesky, etc all work that way. Nostr is full of nazis and bitcoin bros, and bluesky is effectively centralised in other ways, but both of them do have a genuinely decentralised single identity system.

There are a few ways of doing it. A single account on the first platform, and then signing up to remote platforms with that account. A system of trust that allows a user to verify that other remote accounts are genuinely also them. Combine it with platforms that recognise content posted from other accounts/platforms that belong to the same person, and let them edit the "remote" content locally and federate it out again etc.

So you don't end up with a centralised identity, but rather, the ability to manage your identity from whichever instance you happen to be signed in to as if it were created locally on that instance.

[–] WatDabney@piefed.social 2 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

Ah... yes. You're not the OP. You're the one pushing a platform with built in subscription gatekeeping and a raft of reputational anti-features.

Figures.

[–] ada@piefed.blahaj.zone 4 points 20 hours ago* (last edited 20 hours ago)

I don't use bluesky or nostr for the very reasons I outlined in my comment, and I wouldn't recommend them to anyone. Especially nostr, which is a shit hole.

My point is though, they both do non centralised ID, giving similar benefits to what the OP is suggesting, without the centralisation they're suggesting