Any arguments against separating identity from instance/platform? (single identity across the fediverse)

This is a controversial issue.

Some people don't care about having an unique identity and actually favor creating multiple accounts on each service, to present themselves with different avatars depending on who they are interacting with. They are not "attached" to their identities and see this an opportunity to stay pseudonymous online and protect their "real" identity.

Some people think that the instance you join should be also somewhat indicative of your tribe and that they should be able to filter out who they talk about by checking the domain. This view is especially favored by the Mastodon crowd.

And then some other people (I think I would include myself) would like to be able to not just "use" a single identity, but to have portable identity in the Fediverse as a way to ensure that we can remain sovereign over our online presence. I would personally love for Communick customers to be able to use their personal domain, because that would mean that if even if I closed down things tomorrow, they would be able to migrate easily and without depending on me.

We host instances for trans and gender diverse folk, to provide a space that explicitly puts their safety first.

Take away the idea of an instance as a community/identity/distinct space, and the goal for these places existing is gone. Instead of a community and a safe space, we become a generic bit of hardware that enables transphobes as much as trans folk.

That's not something I'd be keen to keep sinking my own funds in to to support.

What I'd much rather see is instance based accounts, however, with the ability to take over/migrate them from other instances, so that if an instance goes down, people can still keep their identity. It would also allow instances focused on protecting minority communities to keep doing that.

It is a matter of responsibility. If you can log into any lemmy instance or mastodon server with the same account, then which server takes responsibility for your actions in the fediverse?

I have seen instances be defederate from because of their lax account creation requirements, or because of harrasment from users from a specific instance.

If an account can log into any instance, then who is responsible for banning the account?

It will be difficult to implement and pretty much at the end of the list for the software you want to implement.

Users most of the time dont want to get identified ( some are here because of the privacy ) and if you want to get identified you can just use PGP signing.

Why does it actually matter? If you're that important, you should have your own domain and instance

@matchaaddict There are very few drawbacks (assuming it's implemented in a way that doesn't break things). That's why it's part of two of the big three social protocols (Nostr & AT/BlueSky) and Activity Pub might get it soon.

I've written about and participated in discussions about implementing identities not controlled at the instance level and discussed bridges that connect activity pub to other protocols. The one major drawback people tend to bring up is moderation, but moderation is not effected like some people think it could be. Just like a PGP key doesn't force Gmail to host a user's email and a domain doesn't force Dreamhost to host a blog, even if identities are separated from instances an individual instance can still ban a user from participating in that instance or prevent other instances from interacting with your instance. The only difference is that if an instance goes down or bans a user the user can pick up and move to a different instance instead of having their account nuked. As somebody who lost a profile due to a SQL database breaking it would have been really nice to have been able to continue.

Also, in the thread here I heard a few people talking about it negating communities. We already can communicate with remote servers, I'm not fully sure where the argument that independent-from-instance-identities will break communities comes from. If something like nomadic identities are implemented, which again, they may be, your account will still be largely focused on one instance.

Say you're an arborist and join an arborist Mastodon community. You're still a part of the community, and your account is centralized there until you say otherwise. Yes, you can reply to a lemmy post or peertube post by authenticating on one of those instances, but you can already do that (there's just a lot of jank since Activity Pub's monolithic servers often have a hard time understanding each other). Yes, say you reply to a lemmy post about beekeeping that would show up in the local insatance timeline (assuming remotely authenticated posts are allowed to show up in the timeline), but again not only can you already do that, but it's not like you'd expect an aborist focused instance would have ONLY aborist focused discussions.

Lol, I hope I was coherent. I just misinterpreted a bottle of bottle of lime infused liquor as 30 proof instead of 30% ethanol so I consumed a little more than I expected. Anyway, regardless, personally consider identities separated from servers/instances a very big pro, with very little drawbacks (if implemented in a way that does not break existing implementations).

AFAIK you can already sign into pixelfed with your mastodon account. It is a good idea, I think the only problem would be you would be completely reliant on Instance and if that goes down everything is gone

IMO, if you choose a common username (except for alt accounts) for all your platforms (in my case, dch82) it's fairly easy to find all the accounts. If you want to, you can also link your other platforms in the bio.

My potential argument against it starts with asking where the credentials are stored for authenticating this identity.

Currently the home instance stores the hashed password and performs authentication.

In a way, the identity “belongs to” the place that does authentication, which now happens to be the instance.

If identity is decoupled from an instance, that means authentication decouples from an instance.

If the identity “belongs to” the fediverse as a whole, then that means the fediverse as a whole has an authentication mechanism.

Unless we can come up with a distributed authentication mechanism, that means the fediverse as a whole has some authentication service, as in one, which means centralized.

This therefore breaks decentralization, unless the authentication is somehow handled in a distributed way. Maybe consensus or something on a hashed password? But if those hashed passwords are stored in a distributed manner, then you’d need a super long password to prevent rainbow table attacks on the passwords, given the hashed values would essentially be public information.

Maybe public keys are stored in a blockchain? I don’t know this is beyond me in the details.

But to summarize the problem at a data model level, an identity belongs to an instance, because the instance can authenticate them. If the identity now belongs to the whole fediverse, then the whole fediverse needs to be able to authenticate them, which if not handled correctly could lead to centralized authentication, centralized banning, censorship, reddit, etc.