๐ณ๐ฑ
bonifartius ๐ผ๐
Yea the UFoI is intended to be a mostly social construct. There is some technology to facilitate voting and providing verification of who is or is not in the UFI. But overall its almost entirely social in nature.
You can see an early preview of our website here: http://UFoI.org
@freemo @ufoi i'm not sure if this is the right place to ask right now:
how are "alternates" of a user handled with UFoI, especially when it's an alternate not on a UFoI instance? are accounts the moderated item or the people themselves?
the previous blocklists always had some entries like "alternate of $baduser" and alike.
i could rephrase the question as: is the target to keep timelines clean or is the target to cancel a person - even if some alternates aren't posting things against the rules.
The UFoI defines the minimum standards of which policies instances need to implement in order to federate with each other. Currently, there is nothing that looks to ban a specific user across different instances. If the user has alternative accounts, as long as theyโre not breaking the minimum standards on those alternative accounts, there is nothing in UFoI that compels an instance to ban those alternative accounts.
I should add, there is nothing currently either that demands a ban either in UFoI, it just puts demands on an instance to deal with the problem.
Pretty much what Ryle said. UFoI is mostly concerned with instances, individual members are handled by the instance admins. We just expect instances to moderate with our code of ethics in mind.
The only way duplicate users is an issue is when it comes to voting rights. For now we are just using gitlab accounts to act as a proxy for voting with the assumption its hard to have a bunch of different gitlab account. In the future I think the solution will use PGP keys and keyoxide.
The working prototype right now works for admins only, yes.. but i will be adding something similar for users. The idea is every registered user will have a little page on the website that will have a "card" of their details (their status, whether they are an admin, on the counsel, just a user, etc)... so it will work for regular users soon.
I just wrote a page that explains how, this will be a good chance to see if i did a good job writing it. Check out this and let me know if it makes sense:
What is the purpose of having individual members as well as instance admins?
The name implies the itโs the instances that are united (and not the users directly).
I think the idea that any user from a united instance can be elected is sound, but why should any individual potentially have a vote that weighs the same as an instance of thousands?
I dividuals outside the ufoi instances but members wouldnt get a vote. They simply pledge to the rules personally... its debatable if we want to support it at all but i figured it might be a way to gain more momentun and spread the word.
Anyone being users of UFoI, instance owners, or official representatives? I imagine if it were users, we could run into problems quickly if the pages had 10,000 rel me links embedded in it. I would suggest that if it were for users that each user get a unique URL instead.
@Ryle @ufoi The current prototype is for "instance member representatives".. basically the admins of instance members.
I plan to also have a verified link for regular everyday members, specifically "registered members" (members who opt-in and likely coincides with their authorization to vote). In that case I will create a page per user that will be autogenerated when the webpage deploys
@freemo @ufoi
HTTP instead of HTTPS?