this post was submitted on 20 Feb 2025
29 points (100.0% liked)
Privacy
894 readers
37 users here now
Protect your privacy in the digital world
Welcome! This is a community for all those who are interested in protecting their privacy.
Rules
PS: Don't be a smartass and try to game the system, we'll know if you're breaking the rules when we see it!
- Be nice, civil and no bigotry/prejudice.
- No tankies/alt-right fascists. The former can be tolerated but the latter are banned.
- Stay on topic.
- Don't promote proprietary software.
- No crypto, blockchain, etc.
- No Xitter links. (only allowed when can't fact check any other way, use xcancel)
- If in doubt, read rule 1
Related communities:
- !opensource@programming.dev
- !selfhosting@slrpnk.net / !selfhosted@lemmy.world
- !piracy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
founded 3 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
This is a bad move. While I don't disagree with the issue they are trying to solve, centralizing the directory control is literally against the goal of the protocol itself. They should have created a proper replacement system instead.
Did you read the same post that I did? Where does it say they're centralizing the directory control? This post reads to me like it's about an individual server instance, not the whole network.
It's not centralized by implementation, but that's what it does in practice. matrix.org is by far the biggest instance and now all the other public rooms will be hidden on there unless someone manually approves it. If more instances move to the same offered default preference now, discoverability is dead.
https://matrixrooms.info/