this post was submitted on 20 Oct 2026
570 points (98.5% liked)
Fediverse
44428 readers
1051 users here now
A community to talk about the Fediverse and all it's related services using ActivityPub (Mastodon, Lemmy, Mbin, etc).
If you wanted to get help with moderating your own community then head over to !moderators@lemmy.world!
Rules
- Posts must be on topic.
- Be respectful of others.
- Cite the sources used for graphs and other statistics.
- Follow the general Lemmy.world rules.
Learn more at these websites: Join The Fediverse Wiki, Fediverse.info, Wikipedia Page, The Federation Info (Stats), FediDB (Stats), Sub Rehab (Reddit Migration)
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Yeah, thats how it should be: one download, everyone else downloads from that server, not the original source.
Seems abusable though
It is, but that's what defederation is for: If there are instances that are being sketchy, they are supposed to get cut off from the rest of the Fediverse.
If one instance doesn't trust another, they shouldn't federate in the first place.
Add metadata with a checksum of the og one with signature and let each client check that up.
If it's a signed checksum then maybe. But if the og instance is doing the abusing then it won't help.
Yeah there must be some trust indeed of the og instance. A scoring system could help with that.
Or ... Or we could stagger the requests of the different instances so that they don't overload the linked site. Why reinvent the wheel?
Eventually that leaves the load to the source event if it’s differed. And the load would still grow along the growth of the fediverse. So this would likely be pushing the issue to tomorrow. Signing content checksum isn’t exactly like reinventing a wheel, it’s something done in many contexts. And it removes the load from the source entirely.
Exactly