5 ms·

i think selective following is the future of moderation, mainly because nobody wants to look at sick crap all day long. brings up the question of having to hos

by olah_1 5y ago

i think selective following is the future of moderation, mainly because nobody wants to look at sick crap all day long. brings up the question of having to host the bad content though. this makes me think the client server model for decentralized networks is just dead in the water. selective following + each user just holding their own data on the client = so many problems solved

black_puppydog 5y ago
Have a look a the decentralised projects put there then. Ssb (secure scuttlebutt) seem to fit your description, but fair warning: this setup comes with its own set of problems around moderation and other things.
- olah_1 5y ago
  I definitely do follow Manyverse development. But as you alluded to, I won’t use it until a few new features are developed like “strong” follows vs “soft” (doesn’t automatically seed all of their follower content) follows.
vineyardmike 5y ago
I disagree, client/server where there are multiple servers is the future - for legal reasons and for social reasons. It allows you to handle all sorts of governance issues... 1. If the EU passes some crazy law, you can just host the server in the EU and peer only with EU servers and EU customers so everyone complies with regulation. 2. If you don't like the mod rules, you can change servers and find new policies/rules. That is what we're seeing with many "conservatives" who feel that big tech is "biased". 3. Inevitably, people who create bad content ("sick crap" as you say) will be blocked and forced migrate to low-moderation fringe servers (or stop using the system if none exist). Very popular servers will increase their KYC type policies to cut down on moderation needs (and use moderation as a selling point). Sketchy servers won't be allowed as peers to common servers, or will come with warnings, just like how gmail flags many self hosted email servers as spam and corporate email servers flag everything from external domains. 4. Today, email is the only common protocol that isn't centrally owned besides phone systems for people to communicate. Zoom had a good boom during the pandemic but because its centralized it won't stay as a viable compatibility tool between organizations. As the costs rise on using centralized products (compliance, etc), then turning to self-hosted with inter-op will be more popular. Maybe those businesses don't care about a Twitter clone, but federation lets orgs own their communication (eg. monitor traffic, add retention policy, etc) but operate beyond their borders.
- olah_1 5y ago
  What is the incentive for a server operator to take on all this risk? Most of these people running servers don’t charge anything, so I can only assume that it is a (1) a hobby or (2) they have bad intentions. If 1, they have failed to understand the dangerous legal position they are putting themselves in. If 2, they are wonderfully set up to entrap or just monitor people and send info to the authorities. Maybe that in itself is a fun hobby for them, who knows? Every single point you bring up here is completely unnecessary work. It’s just a lot of work. Why would I find a server with exactly the policies i prefer when I can just self-moderate and follow the people i want to follow? Not to mention that these “policies” are basically written on a napkin and at the whims of a random person who may have gotten bad indigestion that morning. My question is simply why bother with all this needless bureaucracy when you can be left alone?
  - vineyardmike 5y ago
    What’s the incentive? If it’s a hobby, then that’s fine. Those servers will be like hobby email servers today. Why can’t they have good intentions? Eg a real business. Like Gmail, Outlook, etc before them. Only for modern day services. Why does anyone host anything on the internet? What is this, 1985? People will host and share things online for others. Why would someone who hosts something have to be a nefarious covert LEO? You’d find a server because self moderation is a lot of work. People already seek out specific people to follow and that’s more than enough moderation for them. The rise of algorithmic feeds being popular is because self moderation is already not something people want. Who wants to host the data of their feeds locally and have to query other individuals? People want always available servers not p2p. We see the behavior already. “Why… When you can be left alone” is probably the attitude of someone not meant for social media.
    - olah_1 5y ago
      > Those servers will be like hobby email servers today. Nobody relies on these for real communication. Maybe as a toy. But everyone would have a gmail as backup. > Eg a real business. Like Gmail, Outlook If it’s a for-profit business, that does change things. But please let me know of any business you know of like this that isn’t spying on you, isn’t selling your data, and is still reliable. I can’t think of any. Actually to lower the bar, let me know of any mastodon server that is run like a legitimate business that a user could potentially sue for breaking contract. > self moderation is a lot of work Not in my experience. Simply don’t follow people that you don’t want to follow. > People want always available servers not p2p Always-available is not mutually exclusive with p2p. see: relay servers. I don’t need to rent my account from a relay server, they can just seed my data for me. Heck they don’t even need to be able to read my data to seed it for me. > “Why… When you can be left alone” is probably the attitude of someone not meant for social media. And not being able to see possibilities beyond the fediverse (a completely failed project from adoption and UX standpoints) is not an attitude meant for hacker news. Innovwtion should not stop just because some techy hacker people have made a solution. We shouldn’t be precious about these things just because we see the builders as one of our own or something.

by olah_1 5y ago

black_puppydog 5y ago

Have a look a the decentralised projects put there then. Ssb (secure scuttlebutt) seem to fit your description, but fair warning: this setup comes with its own set of problems around moderation and other things.

olah_1 5y ago
I definitely do follow Manyverse development. But as you alluded to, I won’t use it until a few new features are developed like “strong” follows vs “soft” (doesn’t automatically seed all of their follower content) follows.

vineyardmike 5y ago

I disagree, client/server where there are multiple servers is the future - for legal reasons and for social reasons. It allows you to handle all sorts of governance issues... 1. If the EU passes some crazy law, you can just host the server in the EU and peer only with EU servers and EU customers so everyone complies with regulation. 2. If you don't like the mod rules, you can change servers and find new policies/rules. That is what we're seeing with many "conservatives" who feel that big tech is "biased". 3. Inevitably, people who create bad content ("sick crap" as you say) will be blocked and forced migrate to low-moderation fringe servers (or stop using the system if none exist). Very popular servers will increase their KYC type policies to cut down on moderation needs (and use moderation as a selling point). Sketchy servers won't be allowed as peers to common servers, or will come with warnings, just like how gmail flags many self hosted email servers as spam and corporate email servers flag everything from external domains. 4. Today, email is the only common protocol that isn't centrally owned besides phone systems for people to communicate. Zoom had a good boom during the pandemic but because its centralized it won't stay as a viable compatibility tool between organizations. As the costs rise on using centralized products (compliance, etc), then turning to self-hosted with inter-op will be more popular. Maybe those businesses don't care about a Twitter clone, but federation lets orgs own their communication (eg. monitor traffic, add retention policy, etc) but operate beyond their borders.

olah_1 5y ago
What is the incentive for a server operator to take on all this risk? Most of these people running servers don’t charge anything, so I can only assume that it is a (1) a hobby or (2) they have bad intentions. If 1, they have failed to understand the dangerous legal position they are putting themselves in. If 2, they are wonderfully set up to entrap or just monitor people and send info to the authorities. Maybe that in itself is a fun hobby for them, who knows? Every single point you bring up here is completely unnecessary work. It’s just a lot of work. Why would I find a server with exactly the policies i prefer when I can just self-moderate and follow the people i want to follow? Not to mention that these “policies” are basically written on a napkin and at the whims of a random person who may have gotten bad indigestion that morning. My question is simply why bother with all this needless bureaucracy when you can be left alone?
- vineyardmike 5y ago
  What’s the incentive? If it’s a hobby, then that’s fine. Those servers will be like hobby email servers today. Why can’t they have good intentions? Eg a real business. Like Gmail, Outlook, etc before them. Only for modern day services. Why does anyone host anything on the internet? What is this, 1985? People will host and share things online for others. Why would someone who hosts something have to be a nefarious covert LEO? You’d find a server because self moderation is a lot of work. People already seek out specific people to follow and that’s more than enough moderation for them. The rise of algorithmic feeds being popular is because self moderation is already not something people want. Who wants to host the data of their feeds locally and have to query other individuals? People want always available servers not p2p. We see the behavior already. “Why… When you can be left alone” is probably the attitude of someone not meant for social media.
  - olah_1 5y ago
    > Those servers will be like hobby email servers today. Nobody relies on these for real communication. Maybe as a toy. But everyone would have a gmail as backup. > Eg a real business. Like Gmail, Outlook If it’s a for-profit business, that does change things. But please let me know of any business you know of like this that isn’t spying on you, isn’t selling your data, and is still reliable. I can’t think of any. Actually to lower the bar, let me know of any mastodon server that is run like a legitimate business that a user could potentially sue for breaking contract. > self moderation is a lot of work Not in my experience. Simply don’t follow people that you don’t want to follow. > People want always available servers not p2p Always-available is not mutually exclusive with p2p. see: relay servers. I don’t need to rent my account from a relay server, they can just seed my data for me. Heck they don’t even need to be able to read my data to seed it for me. > “Why… When you can be left alone” is probably the attitude of someone not meant for social media. And not being able to see possibilities beyond the fediverse (a completely failed project from adoption and UX standpoints) is not an attitude meant for hacker news. Innovwtion should not stop just because some techy hacker people have made a solution. We shouldn’t be precious about these things just because we see the builders as one of our own or something.