• Midnitte@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    1 month ago

    To the surprise of no one - Mozilla should have just made accounts on some server and promised support for said server

    • Steve@communick.news
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      30
      ·
      1 month ago

      Hard disagree.
      Running your own social media server for official accounts, so you’re not beholden to the whims of other providers, is kind of an obvious thing to do for online organizations.

      • m-p{3}@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        22
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        I wish more news organizations would do this. Make the instance only for the employees and have the public follow them through public instances.

        It solves the following issues

        • Social media independence
        • Validate account authenticity through the instance domain name
        • Ability for followers migration between instances (leave, join, change news organization)
        • Grimpen@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          14
          ·
          1 month ago

          The whole Fediverse is still a little on the niche side, but if growth continues, I think this is exactly another development. When you work for Company X, your work email is usually [email protected], likewise I would expect official Fediverse presences.

          Where it will probably take off though is when somebody starts selling corporations a turn-key solution. Kind of how products like Outlook took over corporate email.

        • Midnitte@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 month ago

          I definitely agree on news organizations doing this (and even government departments), but the problem with Mozilla doing it is they were running a server any of us could join - if they don’t have the resources to run it for themselves, they definitely shouldn’t be doing it for others to join.

      • Kichae@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 month ago

        This. One of the points of this whole endeavour is self-hosting, in the name of resisting centralization.

        Imagine if Mozilla had hostes its website on Geocities.

      • Midnitte@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        Isn’t that exactly why you pick up your account and move servers?

        Again, they were also running a server we could join - I don’t know why they thought they had the resources to handle that.

        • Steve@communick.news
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          1 month ago

          We’re not talking about individual people, but whole corporations and organizations.

          For example. Instance.social is shutting down. Now the whole Org needs to migrate 150 accounts to someplace else. Oh and the old posts are being deleted, can’t migrate those.

          And the support community you created on there, is going away also. Again, can’t really migrate all the old posts and comments. But the FAQ documentation we put there when people asked about it, can be manually copied to the new place. So that’s something

          That’s not a situation any company would want to be in. Better to have their own social home, that they control.