5 ms·

For Mastodon to 'work' in a way I'd enjoy, it would need a culture that it just does not have, and that has never emerged from any microblogging platform. The F

For Mastodon to 'work' in a way I'd enjoy, it would need a culture that it just does not have, and that has never emerged from any microblogging platform. The Fediverse as a whole is filled with enraged culture warriors, going out of their own way to be upset and exclude others. I don't buy into the "Well, you can just grow YOUR OWN island!" spiel. I don't want to make an echo chamber, I want a healthy environment where people from disparate backgrounds can discuss a topic without "AS AN XYZ THIS IS BAD AND EVIL" being the key point of discussion. And I know for a fact that the large instances that operate in that way would immediately defederate for wrongthink.

zozbot234 4y ago
> I want a healthy environment where people from disparate backgrounds can discuss a topic without "AS AN XYZ THIS IS BAD AND EVIL" being the key point of discussion. I'm pretty sure that this qualifies as an "island" - one that you would need pretty harsh moderation to maintain too, not unlike HN itself. And of course you'd likely want to defederate from the largest instances, to get away from their toxic attitudes.
firefoxkekw 4y ago
Just wait until people start realizing the privacy problems that Mastodon have unless you make your own instance. You don't like the new twitter moderation? oh wellcome to Mastodon where a 12 year old can be a moderator of a instance. Global guidelines for moderation? No in Mastodon since each instance can have their own rules, 10/10 if you love being in echo chambers. Created your account in a random instance? oh well maybe all your messages end in doxbin because the 14 year old who made the instance have access to all your messages.
- mcherm 4y ago
  I just can't get myself to see this as a genuine disadvantage. On Mastodon you can choose the server to use (and thus the moderation). Sure, this means you can choose a server run by a 12-year-old who moderates poorly. But if you don't want that... don't pick that server! The problem (no, ONE of the many problems) with creating good moderation is that different people have different definitions of what constitutes "good" moderation so it's impossible to satisfy all of them. If Mastodon allows the user to choose, that seems inherently better.
  - FortiDude 4y ago
    So let's say a lot of people think in that way and avoid instances managed by nameless accounts. Where does that leave us? Well, maybe people will flock to the few instances ran by transparent, accountable and competent people. Maybe some apolitical non-profit? Maybe a group of passionate engineers with spare change? In any case those instances would become pretty massive and the costs would skyrocket and...... well, we're at square one: few instances will have total control over your data, they will either inject ads or require payment to keep the servers running and nothing will have changed
    - glenstein 4y ago
      .....or they would find an equilibrium that doesn't require massive centralization. Your analogy gets from point A to point be with a lot of empty speculation and hand waving.
      - FortiDude 4y ago
        My only assumption is that most people will choose an instance based on its reputation and that reputable instances will be far fewer than amateurish and unreliable ones. This is a very generous assumption and if we suppose people will choose even more randomly then the situation can only get bleaker. On the other hand you hand waved everything I said without specifically refuting any points, so what does that make your reply?
        fsflover 4y ago
        AFAIK fosstodon.org, social.librem.one and mastodon.technology (and likely more) have more or less similar reputation, so your argument is purely theoretical, not supported by the reality. They all have a reasonable number of interesting posts (i.e., users) if you look at some common tags.
        glenstein 4y ago
        You're making assumptions about collective behavior leading to a runaway process. Your second sentence isn't coherent "hand waved everything [you] said", but I'm guessing you mean to suggest I'm handwaving away what you said. I am not doing that. I am saying I see no reason to assume one possibility over an equally plausible alternative, especially just reasoning from speculation.

zozbot234 4y ago

> I want a healthy environment where people from disparate backgrounds can discuss a topic without "AS AN XYZ THIS IS BAD AND EVIL" being the key point of discussion. I'm pretty sure that this qualifies as an "island" - one that you would need pretty harsh moderation to maintain too, not unlike HN itself. And of course you'd likely want to defederate from the largest instances, to get away from their toxic attitudes.

firefoxkekw 4y ago

Just wait until people start realizing the privacy problems that Mastodon have unless you make your own instance. You don't like the new twitter moderation? oh wellcome to Mastodon where a 12 year old can be a moderator of a instance. Global guidelines for moderation? No in Mastodon since each instance can have their own rules, 10/10 if you love being in echo chambers. Created your account in a random instance? oh well maybe all your messages end in doxbin because the 14 year old who made the instance have access to all your messages.

mcherm 4y ago
I just can't get myself to see this as a genuine disadvantage. On Mastodon you can choose the server to use (and thus the moderation). Sure, this means you can choose a server run by a 12-year-old who moderates poorly. But if you don't want that... don't pick that server! The problem (no, ONE of the many problems) with creating good moderation is that different people have different definitions of what constitutes "good" moderation so it's impossible to satisfy all of them. If Mastodon allows the user to choose, that seems inherently better.
- FortiDude 4y ago
  So let's say a lot of people think in that way and avoid instances managed by nameless accounts. Where does that leave us? Well, maybe people will flock to the few instances ran by transparent, accountable and competent people. Maybe some apolitical non-profit? Maybe a group of passionate engineers with spare change? In any case those instances would become pretty massive and the costs would skyrocket and...... well, we're at square one: few instances will have total control over your data, they will either inject ads or require payment to keep the servers running and nothing will have changed
  - glenstein 4y ago
    .....or they would find an equilibrium that doesn't require massive centralization. Your analogy gets from point A to point be with a lot of empty speculation and hand waving.
    - FortiDude 4y ago
      My only assumption is that most people will choose an instance based on its reputation and that reputable instances will be far fewer than amateurish and unreliable ones. This is a very generous assumption and if we suppose people will choose even more randomly then the situation can only get bleaker. On the other hand you hand waved everything I said without specifically refuting any points, so what does that make your reply?
      - fsflover 4y ago
        AFAIK fosstodon.org, social.librem.one and mastodon.technology (and likely more) have more or less similar reputation, so your argument is purely theoretical, not supported by the reality. They all have a reasonable number of interesting posts (i.e., users) if you look at some common tags.
      - glenstein 4y ago
        You're making assumptions about collective behavior leading to a runaway process. Your second sentence isn't coherent "hand waved everything [you] said", but I'm guessing you mean to suggest I'm handwaving away what you said. I am not doing that. I am saying I see no reason to assume one possibility over an equally plausible alternative, especially just reasoning from speculation.