4 ms·

> We might ask then, is Gab a platform for free speech, or is it a platform for hate speech? Who’s speech does Gab prioritize? It quickly becomes clear that the

> We might ask then, is Gab a platform for free speech, or is it a platform for hate speech? Who’s speech does Gab prioritize? It quickly becomes clear that the concept of “free speech” that Gab deploys is not quite the same as what others see it to mean. Gab's example seems to undermine the author's previous arguments, as Gab is now running on Mastodon, whose founders profess values fundamentally opposed to Gab. > Obviously, exit in a digital context is logistically simpler than in a physical one, but it is still not easy. People critical of Twitter’s policies still use Twitter, not because they are hypocritical but because it’s a lot of effort to migrate to a new platform and re-establish connections from the former. The migration part is because Twitter is a centralized network, which has been ever more draconian with its APIs. Federated and decentralized networks shouldn't have logistic issues with exiting. Again, see Mastodon.

danielheath 6y ago
Except they frequently do, because you don't own the domain your mastodon identity is tied to. There's promising work in this area, but as yet none of the major implementations support separating 'hosting' from 'identity' the way (eg) email has for at least 20 years (probably longer, I wasn't there).
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- curtainsforus 6y ago
  How does email do this? If someone's email address is jim@website.com, isn't their identity tied to that domain name?
  - callahad 6y ago
    I suspect parent is referring to how actual service backing an email address can transparently change from Gmail to Hey to Fastmail and so on. The hosting is separate from the identity.
    - danielheath 6y ago
      Yes - on mastodon, plemora and others you cannot use your own domain with a shared host.
Mediterraneo10 6y ago
> Gab is now running on Mastodon, whose founders profess values fundamentally opposed to Gab. Just because Gab and other Mastodon servers run the same technology, means little without federation between them. Signal and Whatsapp share key technology, but they are worlds apart regardless because they will never federate with one another.
- BlueTemplar 6y ago
  Correct me if I am wrong, but I can federate with both Gab and "official" Mastodon if I want to, while there's no way to do that between Signal and WhatsApp (at least without third party hacks) ?
  - Mediterraneo10 6y ago
    > I can federate with both Gab and "official" Mastodon if I want to Not in practice. Most "official" Mastodon sites will block you if you federate with instances of which the mainstream Mastodon community disapproves.
    - BlueTemplar 6y ago
      That's from the point of view of a server, a user, or both? (I guess a user can always have several accounts while still using the same client... for those clients that have not blacklisted Gab outright?)
cocktailpeanuts 6y ago
> The migration part is because Twitter is a centralized network, which has been ever more draconian with its APIs. Federated and decentralized networks shouldn't have logistic issues with exiting. Again, see Mastodon. I think you missed the whole point of the paragraph. The reason "exit" is not easy even on "decentralized networks" like Mastodon is because of the economics of doing so. Even though it's technically more feasible than closed sourced social graphs like Facebook or Twitter, people rarely have enough incentive to fork off with their own network. For this migration to work correctly, it should be effortless and without much cost for every user. That's not the case as the article explains clearly. No matter how federated Mastodon instances are, they are equivalent to running a city. Most people don't want to run a city just because they are sick of some policies. They have other better things to do in their real lives. OP explains that in these federated approaches or Urbit like approaches, technically you're free to fork off, but most people will choose to live a shitty life because it's too much hassle.

danielheath 6y ago

Except they frequently do, because you don't own the domain your mastodon identity is tied to. There's promising work in this area, but as yet none of the major implementations support separating 'hosting' from 'identity' the way (eg) email has for at least 20 years (probably longer, I wasn't there).

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
curtainsforus 6y ago
How does email do this? If someone's email address is jim@website.com, isn't their identity tied to that domain name?
- callahad 6y ago
  I suspect parent is referring to how actual service backing an email address can transparently change from Gmail to Hey to Fastmail and so on. The hosting is separate from the identity.
  - danielheath 6y ago
    Yes - on mastodon, plemora and others you cannot use your own domain with a shared host.

Mediterraneo10 6y ago

> Gab is now running on Mastodon, whose founders profess values fundamentally opposed to Gab. Just because Gab and other Mastodon servers run the same technology, means little without federation between them. Signal and Whatsapp share key technology, but they are worlds apart regardless because they will never federate with one another.

BlueTemplar 6y ago
Correct me if I am wrong, but I can federate with both Gab and "official" Mastodon if I want to, while there's no way to do that between Signal and WhatsApp (at least without third party hacks) ?
- Mediterraneo10 6y ago
  > I can federate with both Gab and "official" Mastodon if I want to Not in practice. Most "official" Mastodon sites will block you if you federate with instances of which the mainstream Mastodon community disapproves.
  - BlueTemplar 6y ago
    That's from the point of view of a server, a user, or both? (I guess a user can always have several accounts while still using the same client... for those clients that have not blacklisted Gab outright?)

cocktailpeanuts 6y ago

> The migration part is because Twitter is a centralized network, which has been ever more draconian with its APIs. Federated and decentralized networks shouldn't have logistic issues with exiting. Again, see Mastodon. I think you missed the whole point of the paragraph. The reason "exit" is not easy even on "decentralized networks" like Mastodon is because of the economics of doing so. Even though it's technically more feasible than closed sourced social graphs like Facebook or Twitter, people rarely have enough incentive to fork off with their own network. For this migration to work correctly, it should be effortless and without much cost for every user. That's not the case as the article explains clearly. No matter how federated Mastodon instances are, they are equivalent to running a city. Most people don't want to run a city just because they are sick of some policies. They have other better things to do in their real lives. OP explains that in these federated approaches or Urbit like approaches, technically you're free to fork off, but most people will choose to live a shitty life because it's too much hassle.