3 ms·

Wouldn’t a decentralized social network be more prone to delvelop more extremist groups? I mean if anyone can create an instance, then extremists from all the p

by elboru 8y ago

Wouldn’t a decentralized social network be more prone to delvelop more extremist groups? I mean if anyone can create an instance, then extremists from all the political spectrum will be able to moderate their own instances, in other words they will censor those who think differently and encourage their own views creating a loop that could potentially create more myopic-extremist views, or is there something I’m missing?

TheSpiceIsLife 8y ago
And won’t the proponents say this is a feature as it keeps them off other instances?
- PakG1 8y ago
  And won't detractors say that this is how the mainstream media got the 2016 US presidential election predictions so wrong? https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/10/what-facebook-did/542502/ https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/10/what-...
  - phs318u 8y ago
    Then perhaps people/corporations will learn that farming social networks to predict IRL intentions may not be the best use of their time and energy. As far as I'm aware, "being an accurate source of voting intention" is not a prime requirement for social networks, nor is "making life easier for lazy journalists/pollsters". At least, not for any where the users are the customers. For those, where the users are the product, requirements might be different. Personally, I view this is a positive for Mastodon.
fwn 8y ago
Compared to the current mode of a few centralized services, a federated social networking landscape will be harder for companies or institutions to control and contain, yes. Depending on the world view that can be perceived as a bug or a feature.
TeMPOraL 8y ago
> I mean if anyone can create an instance, then extremists from all the political spectrum will be able to moderate their own instances, in other words they will censor those who think differently and encourage their own views creating a loop that could potentially create more myopic-extremist views, or is there something I’m missing? Does this even matter? I mean, if you really wanted to stop people with weird views from grouping and then getting extremist through evaporative cooling[0], you'd have to roll the world back to preindustrial times (and even then you wouldn't stop it completely). Mastodon is but one platform; fringe groups will happily keep relocating when their old meeting places want them no longer, or they'll even set up their own platforms. Now that physical proximity is no longer a limiting factor, people of like beliefs will always find each other (if they bother to look). (I think a good analogy is this: a Mastodon community is in the same relation to the Internet as Facebook Groups are to Facebook, or subreddits are to Reddit - a federated system inside a larger whole. The way fringe groups use subreddits/Facebook groups is analogous to how they will use Mastodon.) If you're worried about extremists getting endangering public safety, I feel it's the job of the police to infiltrate such groups and stop individuals as they cross from talking to doing. If you're worried about large chunk of population catching some insane beliefs; I offer no remedy for that. -- [0] - https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/ZQG9cwKbct2LtmL3p/evaporative-cooling-of-group-beliefs https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/ZQG9cwKbct2LtmL3p/evaporativ...
okatsu 8y ago
I'm not really sure what your point is. With or without Mastodon people have already created forums/social media groups/online communities for like-minded people and will censor or not censor it to their liking. That's the freedom of the internet. And honestly I'd rather have that than the current state of social media where everyone is on the same platform and yelling at each other and using retweets to shame one another. My experience is anecdotal of course but whenever I see people trying to engage in discourse with the other side, everyone just doubles down on their opinion and the conversation goes nowhere.

by elboru 8y ago

TheSpiceIsLife 8y ago

And won’t the proponents say this is a feature as it keeps them off other instances?

PakG1 8y ago
And won't detractors say that this is how the mainstream media got the 2016 US presidential election predictions so wrong? https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/10/what-facebook-did/542502/ https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/10/what-...
- phs318u 8y ago
  Then perhaps people/corporations will learn that farming social networks to predict IRL intentions may not be the best use of their time and energy. As far as I'm aware, "being an accurate source of voting intention" is not a prime requirement for social networks, nor is "making life easier for lazy journalists/pollsters". At least, not for any where the users are the customers. For those, where the users are the product, requirements might be different. Personally, I view this is a positive for Mastodon.

fwn 8y ago

Compared to the current mode of a few centralized services, a federated social networking landscape will be harder for companies or institutions to control and contain, yes. Depending on the world view that can be perceived as a bug or a feature.

TeMPOraL 8y ago

> I mean if anyone can create an instance, then extremists from all the political spectrum will be able to moderate their own instances, in other words they will censor those who think differently and encourage their own views creating a loop that could potentially create more myopic-extremist views, or is there something I’m missing? Does this even matter? I mean, if you really wanted to stop people with weird views from grouping and then getting extremist through evaporative cooling[0], you'd have to roll the world back to preindustrial times (and even then you wouldn't stop it completely). Mastodon is but one platform; fringe groups will happily keep relocating when their old meeting places want them no longer, or they'll even set up their own platforms. Now that physical proximity is no longer a limiting factor, people of like beliefs will always find each other (if they bother to look). (I think a good analogy is this: a Mastodon community is in the same relation to the Internet as Facebook Groups are to Facebook, or subreddits are to Reddit - a federated system inside a larger whole. The way fringe groups use subreddits/Facebook groups is analogous to how they will use Mastodon.) If you're worried about extremists getting endangering public safety, I feel it's the job of the police to infiltrate such groups and stop individuals as they cross from talking to doing. If you're worried about large chunk of population catching some insane beliefs; I offer no remedy for that. -- [0] - https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/ZQG9cwKbct2LtmL3p/evaporative-cooling-of-group-beliefs https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/ZQG9cwKbct2LtmL3p/evaporativ...

okatsu 8y ago

I'm not really sure what your point is. With or without Mastodon people have already created forums/social media groups/online communities for like-minded people and will censor or not censor it to their liking. That's the freedom of the internet. And honestly I'd rather have that than the current state of social media where everyone is on the same platform and yelling at each other and using retweets to shame one another. My experience is anecdotal of course but whenever I see people trying to engage in discourse with the other side, everyone just doubles down on their opinion and the conversation goes nowhere.