Yeah, that’s a decent hack. Though it requires creating the same magazine locally (fair enough), but if there already is a local magazine that’s federated to that other instance, then it’s complicated.
I guess I’m not clear on how federated magazines work. Suppose we have:
domainX.social/m/immigration
domainY.social/m/immigration
domainZ.social/m/immigration
and someone locally creates a local.social/m/[email protected]. Does that mean we can still create a an unfederated local.social/m/immigration? Or can multiple federated magazines be combined in the same local mag?
And what if domainY has a right wing extremist anti-immigration slant which we don’t want. But we want domainZ’s version but domainZ has federated with domainY?
In your example, it wouldn't be local.social/m/[email protected]. If a user on local.social created a immigration magazine it would be local.social/m/immigration The @ part is only for remote magazines. So that same magazine viewed from domainX would be domainX.social/m/[email protected]. local.social/m/[email protected] is an immigration magazine hosted on domainX.social and accessed from local.social
Or can multiple federated magazines be combined in the same local mag?
Not currently. There are multiple proposals for grouping magazines that are being discussed.
And what if domainY has a right wing extremist anti-immigration slant which we don’t want. But we want domainZ’s version but domainZ has federated with domainY?
You can subscribe to whichever one you want. domainZ.social/m/immigration is not affected by whatever the users on domainY post to domainY.social/m/immigration. They are two separate communities.