6 ms·
I would read that as editorial/curatorial power being decentralized.
by sctb 3y ago
I would read that as editorial/curatorial power being decentralized.
- isaacremuant 3y agoThe sad fact is that the fediverse has the worse of both worlds where, in the end, it still seems like following a block list of an admin who is accountable to no one (instead of a popular person with some specific track record) and the fragmentation means the discoverability and interaction is minimal. Until there's a way where one user can decide what instances to see, it will be a crap experience unless you agree 100% with the whims of an admin, who made you jump through hoops only to defederate at the slightest disagreement. Such a think skinned way to approach online interactions, one of zero tolerance for dissent (and terrible for the exchange of ideas).
- basch 3y agohaving each persons identity tied to the instance makes the whole thing way too unstable and centralized. identity needs to exist outside the bounds of instances.
- d-cc 3y agoThis is why we have keyservers.
- realitythreek 3y agoSo having a central identity has pros and cons, right? One of the cons is you’d then be beholden to whomever runs the identity service and that takes away a lot of the autonomy of the Fediverse.
- basch 3y agoyou can have decentralized identity separate from the instances. maybe all the lemmyverse instances share an identity chain, and all the mastadon instances share an identity chain, and they are both cross compatible with any other instance variant that supports the standard.
- jszymborski 3y agoJoin a member-owned co-op instance :) If set-up correctly the admins/mods are legally bound to be responsible to the members of the co-op. Judging by your comment though, I think we prefer very different levels of moderation, and I'd agree that culturally Masto trends towards heavier moderation.
- isaacremuant 3y agoI don't know why everyone is talking about mastodon. I'm not taking about mastodon. I've never used it nor do I like twitter as a space for conversation. I'm talking about the fediverse in general (activity pub protocol) and the paradigm of "basically following a block list" which, after seeing how mono narrative and US centric some online spaces tend to be, I don't find appealing. In particular my qualms were comparing it to the likes of reddit, which is usually heavily moderated. I appreciate the suggestion of co-op. Don't think it will solve the "as an individual I don't want to be bound by the majority's Blocklist when people are so prone to behave like mobs" but I do understand the appeal. It works as a small wrbbof trust. För very small communities, it can work. But not much chance to grow and be an interesting compendium of ideas and shared content.
- jszymborski 3y agoI mention Masto w.r.t. its moderation culture. I find other corners of the fedi have far different/laissez-faire moderation norms (e.g. Pleroma). Regardless of what the activitypub app is, moderation norms and moires form. Large instance sizes are definitely a challenge re: accountability and much ink has been spilled on what the optimal instance size should be. There is definitely a sweet spot where one has strong representation but also belongs to a larger community that is capable, among other things, to maintain operations.
- yborg 3y agoIt's impressive that you have evaluated 20k+ instances to summarize the Fediverse. I have accounts on 5 separate Mastodon instances, and on none of them is the experience as you describe it. You also seem to believe that if you get on an instance run by a reactionary martinet that you are somehow forced to stay there or stop using the Fediverse. Of course, a lot of people seem to believe this about Twitter.
- isaacremuant 3y agoIt's impressive how you don't get that the point stands because of the paradigm of users being tied to instances and not having the ability to construct themselves, what they want to see. You're comfortable with whatever you're doing and that's fine but for someone who is looking for my usecase ,which is more akin to Reddit and being able to pick the subs I see for myself, it's absolutely limiting. I don't care about mastodon or twitter but that's beside the point. My points stand. If you want to address them make sure you read them again.
- Etrnl_President 3y agoSounds like what you need is more like an overlaid comment section, perhaps through an app or browser extension, which you can apply to any website and article. Would be cool if such a thing existed.
- mananaysiempre 3y agoPeople did build things like that a couple of times, but it’s probably telling that my last vague recollection of one is several US newspapers piling up on one of them because people used it to put mean and perhaps even hurtful things on pages of news websites (opt-in via a browser extension, mind you).
- Etrnl_President 3y agoThem's the risks of freeze peach. Interestingly, it turns out, free speech by far benefits the poor more than the rich. https://phys.org/news/2023-06-economics-free-speech-benefits-poor.html https://phys.org/news/2023-06-economics-free-speech-benefits... So I'm willing to accept a few mean comments.
- realitythreek 3y ago> Until there's a way where one user can decide what instances to see, it will be a crap experience unless you agree 100% with the whims of an admin, who made you jump through hoops only to defederate at the slightest disagreement. You can always run your own instance for yourself. Also in practice I’ve not found it hard to find instances who’s block lists I agree with.
- isaacremuant 3y agoThanks for the suggestion but it sounds utterly ridiculous to have to self host an instance just to achieve that usecase.
- realitythreek 3y agoYou don't have to self host. That was a suggestion if you couldn't find a single other instance out of the thousands that exist that meet your requirements.
- isaacremuant 3y agoSignal vs noise ratio is too high. My point is that the model of Blocklist from others is not enticing for any individualistisc user who values diversification of ideas and the fact that the default makes it a bad burden for the user who wants to try that, means that communities won't be formed that don't have that blocklist mindset, one way or another. The model is too focused on closing down networks instead of invidual choice. Utility, since it's not like the internet where traffic is good, seems to be around creating extremely narrow minded pools with little crossover, since any exposure to widened thought can be immediately shut down (having already fragmented the communities unless they self host their instance, again, creating burden on the user for more Accounts)
- realitythreek 3y agoI get the sense that you’ve not tried it and you’re speaking extremely generally. That’s fine, you don’t have to. I’ll stop here though until you have an informed perspective.