mastodon.online is one of the many independent Mastodon servers you can use to participate in the fediverse.
A newer server operated by the Mastodon gGmbH non-profit

Server stats:

12K
active users

@ummjackson @Gargron @anildash As a web developer of 26 years I love the (sub)domain identity part.

As a Family & Friends IT support person of 26 years I loathe the idea.

People understand personal email addresses a lot better.

@paulmwatson @ummjackson @Gargron Except that fediverse IDs *look* like email addresses but aren’t. I get people saying they tried to email me at my masto address about once a day.

Kevin Teljeur ❄️

@anildash @paulmwatson @ummjackson @Gargron What if the domain idea could be translated to a Fediverse handle? @anildash.me.dm @Gargron.mastodon.social - A thin layer to remove some friction. Underneath, it would work the same as it does today. It would just require that it be understood by the nodes and UIs in use (I know, I know, it's easier said than done).

It could be a way to streamline sign-on too.

Edit: Clarifications below by @evan that it is supported in ActivityPub.

@kevinteljeur @anildash @paulmwatson @ummjackson @Gargron it already works that way. You can use domain names as fediverse handles. You don't have to use Webfinger.

@evan @anildash @paulmwatson @ummjackson @Gargron I meant more the structure that Anil is referring to - it is confusing for new users and outsiders. Even OSes think that these handles are email addresses.

I'm suggesting that if, for example, there was a landing page and people selected a user name and perhaps the domain appended to that (with terms and conditions depending on the domain selected) then perhaps it would all feel clearer and more seamless to the inexperienced user.

@kevinteljeur @anildash @paulmwatson @ummjackson @Gargron

I guess I wasn't clear: you can implement a server that uses username.domain.tld as usernames with ActivityPub. It will work fine.

@evan @anildash @paulmwatson @ummjackson @Gargron Sorry, indeed. I understand, and that’s good. I’m referred to a compatibility layer to allow both to co-exist - in part, to avoid a redevelopment of existing software which expects the @name@domain structure, and I guess for those who prefer the way it is.