4 ms·

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

by 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

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.