4 ms·

For those looking for a viable, already-blooming alternative, with resistance to such problems, look into the Fediverse. https://torresjrjr.com/archive/2020-07

For those looking for a viable, already-blooming alternative, with resistance to such problems, look into the Fediverse. https://torresjrjr.com/archive/2020-07-19-guide-to-the-fediverse https://torresjrjr.com/archive/2020-07-19-guide-to-the-fediv...

shadowgovt 6y ago
Unpopular opinion: while I don't oppose the existence of non-moderated social networks in the sense that I'd want them extinguished overtly, I'm not deeply convinced they're good, especially in this decade. gab.ai gave breathing room for a man to be so radicalized by surrounding himself with anti-Jewish conspiracy that he murdered people at a synagogue. 4chan is a notorious breeding ground of terrible memetic hazards (including, notably, QAnon). I don't guarantee Fediverse will end up the same, but the alternative services seem to collect mostly fringers who got kicked off of mainstream services with cause, and that's not a group I intend to support with my time and engineering labor. When I see a new social media site pop up, the first question I have is "What stops it from being the next gab.ai?"
- bluedispatcher 6y ago
  I don't think those are good examples. The communities you described formed because they were unwelcome in the mainstream, so it's only logical that they would devolve into radicalization as that's the very essence of their existence. I don't think social platforms should be non-moderated. Calling for harmful action should lead to a ban. Believing unrealistic things shouldn't. In such a context, most non mainstream communities would have no need to exist in a bubble. In the same vein downvotes and upvotes are fundamentally antithetic to free speech as they only serve to amplify the dominant echo and push minorities to their own bubbles. Instead people should be able to downvote locally, informing their own future interactions without affecting the community as a whole.

shadowgovt 6y ago

Unpopular opinion: while I don't oppose the existence of non-moderated social networks in the sense that I'd want them extinguished overtly, I'm not deeply convinced they're good, especially in this decade. gab.ai gave breathing room for a man to be so radicalized by surrounding himself with anti-Jewish conspiracy that he murdered people at a synagogue. 4chan is a notorious breeding ground of terrible memetic hazards (including, notably, QAnon). I don't guarantee Fediverse will end up the same, but the alternative services seem to collect mostly fringers who got kicked off of mainstream services with cause, and that's not a group I intend to support with my time and engineering labor. When I see a new social media site pop up, the first question I have is "What stops it from being the next gab.ai?"

bluedispatcher 6y ago
I don't think those are good examples. The communities you described formed because they were unwelcome in the mainstream, so it's only logical that they would devolve into radicalization as that's the very essence of their existence. I don't think social platforms should be non-moderated. Calling for harmful action should lead to a ban. Believing unrealistic things shouldn't. In such a context, most non mainstream communities would have no need to exist in a bubble. In the same vein downvotes and upvotes are fundamentally antithetic to free speech as they only serve to amplify the dominant echo and push minorities to their own bubbles. Instead people should be able to downvote locally, informing their own future interactions without affecting the community as a whole.