4 ms·

On bans, there are frequent waves of new users who migrate away from Twitter to mastodon because they're told that mastodon has instances that are more suited t

On bans, there are frequent waves of new users who migrate away from Twitter to mastodon because they're told that mastodon has instances that are more suited to their personal (typically) political inclinations, and that the other side isn't permitted here and that discussion is more reasoned. It's not really true. What really happens is that people are told that mastodon is the land of milk and honey, and people of all stripes migrate over, and continue to clash. Mastodon brings better tools to deal with it, but the same people import the same negative behaviours but end up on instances that typically reinforce their beliefs. I really hoped that mastodon would be better, but it's really the same noise as twitter but worse - people end up on hyper-polarised instances where war is waged with blocks, bans, and federation filters. At least on twitter you have to share a home with people you don't agree with, here you can build all the walls you want to isolate yourself from anyone who doesn't completely agree with you.

yborg 8y ago
Mastodon IS better ... at not stuffing ads in my face. So it's not the same noise as Twitter, in that I don't have to share a home with a billboard in every room.
- danso 8y ago
  The appearance of ads is not the only metric that matters for people. The fact that no one is yet apparently spamming or otherwise attempting to profit from Mastadon is more a reflection of how little it is currently used, rather than something inherent to the service.
  - fenwick67 8y ago
    There have certainly been spammers but they are usually shut down quickly
yorwba 8y ago
> people end up on hyper-polarised instances where war is waged with blocks, bans, and federation filters > here you can build all the walls you want to isolate yourself from anyone who doesn't completely agree with you Shouldn't isolation of opposing viewpoints lead to less war overall? If everyone is interacting in the same space, every controversial post can potentially provoke an aggressive reply, and each response draws in more followers to participate in the battle. On HN, that is counteracted by having too many comments weigh down a submission (the famed flamewar detector), but on engagement-based platforms like Twitter, the fighting never ends. If everyone chooses an instance with people that think alike and that filters content they strongly disagree with, it's not going to lead to more people changing their minds; but at least they won't constantly see things that make them mad and draw them into useless fights.
- loceng 8y ago
  No, it can lead to a protected bubble of indoctrination and propaganda spreading efficiently without any countering - which then spreads into the real-world, where real clashes and violence is materialized. Even if the populations were on both or could both move to their own isolated islands, eventually a bad actor is likely to try to take control for their own benefit (and then perpetuated, whether by something like a military-industrial complex, or other); and when land isn't an issue then populations can stay separate enough, however yeah, someone always seems to want more and invade, and so at minimum you have to plan to protect against such potential threats - and without using fear tactics to control or manipulate a population.
progval 8y ago
> where war is waged with blocks, bans, and federation filters I wish all wars were waged like this. It would solve a lot of worldwide issues.
loceng 8y ago
This is my concern as well. It may be what will naturally be though (yin-yang and all that), and thankfully there are ways to get eyes into a bubble even if it's protected to get intelligence on what violent activities may be attempting to be rallied. The interesting and perhaps other fortunate piece to these communities being online is that everyone is quickly mobile (unless under strict watch and censorship locally through physical communication channels) - and so people are less stuck in a community if they realize it is a bubble - and are also more easily able to be reached. I just posted more related thoughts in a comment here - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18213574 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18213574

yborg 8y ago

Mastodon IS better ... at not stuffing ads in my face. So it's not the same noise as Twitter, in that I don't have to share a home with a billboard in every room.

danso 8y ago
The appearance of ads is not the only metric that matters for people. The fact that no one is yet apparently spamming or otherwise attempting to profit from Mastadon is more a reflection of how little it is currently used, rather than something inherent to the service.
- fenwick67 8y ago
  There have certainly been spammers but they are usually shut down quickly

yorwba 8y ago

> people end up on hyper-polarised instances where war is waged with blocks, bans, and federation filters > here you can build all the walls you want to isolate yourself from anyone who doesn't completely agree with you Shouldn't isolation of opposing viewpoints lead to less war overall? If everyone is interacting in the same space, every controversial post can potentially provoke an aggressive reply, and each response draws in more followers to participate in the battle. On HN, that is counteracted by having too many comments weigh down a submission (the famed flamewar detector), but on engagement-based platforms like Twitter, the fighting never ends. If everyone chooses an instance with people that think alike and that filters content they strongly disagree with, it's not going to lead to more people changing their minds; but at least they won't constantly see things that make them mad and draw them into useless fights.

loceng 8y ago
No, it can lead to a protected bubble of indoctrination and propaganda spreading efficiently without any countering - which then spreads into the real-world, where real clashes and violence is materialized. Even if the populations were on both or could both move to their own isolated islands, eventually a bad actor is likely to try to take control for their own benefit (and then perpetuated, whether by something like a military-industrial complex, or other); and when land isn't an issue then populations can stay separate enough, however yeah, someone always seems to want more and invade, and so at minimum you have to plan to protect against such potential threats - and without using fear tactics to control or manipulate a population.

progval 8y ago

> where war is waged with blocks, bans, and federation filters I wish all wars were waged like this. It would solve a lot of worldwide issues.

loceng 8y ago

This is my concern as well. It may be what will naturally be though (yin-yang and all that), and thankfully there are ways to get eyes into a bubble even if it's protected to get intelligence on what violent activities may be attempting to be rallied. The interesting and perhaps other fortunate piece to these communities being online is that everyone is quickly mobile (unless under strict watch and censorship locally through physical communication channels) - and so people are less stuck in a community if they realize it is a bubble - and are also more easily able to be reached. I just posted more related thoughts in a comment here - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18213574 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18213574