Conversation
Notices
-
I don't perceive it as rude. Go ahead, start a group with the same name. I see it as important, actually. In all we do, we should decentralize more. redundancy is good. There are technical problems, but they will be fixed over time, perhaps... cc @bobjonkman
-
of course, it'd be better. (btw: Next time when you are on the streets and see someone with same clothings: ask them: "why not wear clothes with a slightly different color?" )
-
I surely understand the point. But I am coming from the #freedom direction. The software #allows it and who are we to #command someone to !NOT do something? The individual decides. Of course it's "better" if there are compromises...
-
be invited to add a bug report in the !gs bugtracker :-) It could also be extended like: each group X can connect with other X. (X means, they have the same name. So the group members of X on instance Y can see also the posts from every X group in the !fediverse)
-
@erkan That's an interesting solution. So groups would be federated within the network. Everyone who hosts a group with the same name adds to its resilience
-
right, the local group admin of group X makes a association to the other groups X he wants
-
yes, it was actually an idea by @mmn