4 ms·

ActivityPub is ahead, but it feels like a dead end. It has the same issue with Reddit's little fiefdoms: moderators still lord over everyone and control speech,

ActivityPub is ahead, but it feels like a dead end. It has the same issue with Reddit's little fiefdoms: moderators still lord over everyone and control speech, the algorithm, your feed, and your freedom. Nostr and Bluesky's AT protocol are the most promising. I love the truly distributed nature of Nostr, but the ecosystem is hard to get into. Bluesky has strong technical underpinnings and accessibility, but they're the only ones developing and implementing AT protocol. Social media should be more P2P and learn from the 2000's era before the platform giants stole away the dream. Bittorrent, RSS, Atom, semantic web (FOAF, microformats) were the way to complete digital freedom.

systemz 3y ago
The larger instances, the larger moderation issues. People are only people so fierce moderation will happen. With smaller instances "blast radius" is smaller and it shouldn't be problematic like in centralized social media.
mariusor 3y ago
> moderators still lord over everyone and control speech, the algorithm, your feed, and your freedom. I can't understand the toxicity of mind that makes people think it's OK to impose others view their own, unwanted points of view. If you're not welcome in a community, join one that would hear you. Why would that be against your "freedom"?
- sharperguy 3y ago
  I think it's more of an arcitectural issue. If you were a node operator, would you peer with a dedicated racial hatred AP node? What if a small minority of your users complained that you blocked it. With something like nostr, you are free as a relay operator to block whatever makes you feel uncomfortable, while users can just get that content from some other relay without having to create a new account and move their entire social graph over.
  - vidarh 3y ago
    This, to me, is an argument against Nostr. To elaborate, I prefer that the barrier is greater.
    - saurik 3y ago
      Because... you are terrified that you might manage to figure out how to access such content, and need to make it extremely difficult for you to do so, even on purpose? (I clearly don't understand.)
      - vidarh 3y ago
        No, because I want to be able to choose to interact with people who are fine with there being barriers to similar types of content. If some feel they have a compelling reason to straddle both, they still can, so it denies them nothing, but sometimes even small extra barriers helps set a tone for communities.
    - echelon 3y ago
      Why should minds be put in jails? Why should we segregate into like-minded and undesirables? We're better than this. I grew up with [x views, y political party], but because the early internet was open and accepting and not at all like this, I was able to see the broader world and wholly new perspectives. Now the bias is to shit on, shame, and block everyone. That's not going to build a better society. The internet pioneers would be aghast at all of the "happy little" censorship happening today. I've been banned from several subreddits for leaving comments in subreddits the moderators dislike. Removed completely by automation. They don't even realize my comments weren't in support of their favorite issue to hate on. Censorship is wrong. Put blinders on your own feed all day long if you so choose, but stop trying to put cages on other people's minds and voices.
      - vidarh 3y ago
        No minds are "put in jails". But they do not have a right to unfettered access to me. I'm free to choose to set standards, and the standard of requiring them to have a second account if they both want access to me and to content I find deplorable is a really low barrier. And others are free to choose to commune with me in the spaces I want to spend time in, and communities are free to set their standards. I've not argued for censorship. I've argued for my right to shield myself very mildly from people I want nothing to do with, and for others to choose to do so with me. You're free to say what you want on your instance or those of people who believe as you do or are fine with your speech. Nobody is stopping your speech, just your ability to impose it on those of us who does not want it near us.
- bouncing 3y ago
  I would rephrase it: mastodon is full of cliques. The cliques form around moderation, politics, whether they federate with Threads.net, what content warnings are used, and even whether alt text is “required” for images. Then some instances defederate otherwise innocent instances that don’t have sufficient agreement on all those points, regardless of actual content. It is kind of tiring and honestly hard to recommend.
  - vidarh 3y ago
    So is Twitter, and every other social network. They just don't give you the tools to clearly delineate boundaries.
    - bouncing 3y ago
      There are debates and groups on other networks. But there aren’t schisms over alt text or content warnings for food on Threads.
      - vidarh 3y ago
        Is it a feature to you that whole sections of society are absent from it? Because otherwise those views would be there.
      - prmoustache 3y ago
        I haven't observed any debates on these topics from my fediverse account so I guess you see them only if you are looking for them.
  - M2Ys4U 3y ago
    >I would rephrase it: mastodon is full of cliques. It's social networking. Of course there are going to be cliques. That's what happens when you put a non-trivial number of humans in one space (be it virtual or physical).
- yborg 3y ago
  They mean the freedom to impose their views on others, because if the ignorant can just be made to hear the 'truth' they will believe it too. Having the ability to remove such toxicity from the much larger community of people who genuinely want share ideas is a strength of the platform, not a weakness.
- echelon 3y ago
  > I can't understand the toxicity of mind that makes people think it's OK to impose others view their own, unwanted points of view. You're using words like toxic to describe me and you don't even know me. This goes to show the incredibly rotten and highly polarized the status quo has become. Systems that behave the way you're describing are the current norm, and they're broken. You can choose for yourself to ignore me. You can advertise to the world that you ignore me and people can opt into that if they choose. But you shouldn't ever have the right to unilaterally make that call for everyone. Nobody should have that power. Imagine if [opposite viewpoint] could technologically shut you down for everyone else? The systems we design today could enable that tomorrow. Just because you're in a comfortable spot today doesn't mean that eroding rights and freedoms won't ensnare you tomorrow or that the zeitgeist won't change. > If you're not welcome in a community This is also frankly a disturbing trend. Creating little fiefdoms of unacceptance. Who makes you the judge of that? You don't even know what my views and values are, and you're seeking to shun me already. We're all the same. We just sample the world differently. We all need to be more accepting and loving and stop playing petty team sports. In the meantime, you're free to keep on tooting. Nobody is taking Mastodon away from you. It's just not a system I want to spend time or energy advocating for.
  - mariusor 3y ago
    > But you shouldn't ever have the right to unilaterally make that call for everyone. In this hypothetical I'm only making the call for the people of my instance, not for everyone. Like I said, you'd be free to join other instances where people are willing to entertain your point of view. The audacity of assuming that the server that I pay and care for should be a vehicle for content that I don't agree with is baffling to me. It's my house, my rules, simple as.
    - echelon 3y ago
      Sure, that's absolutely your right. I just want spaces for me and others where this isn't the default imposed upon everyone. I don't want to subscribe to [x filtering] unless I choose. House rules and filtering should be opt-in and not the default for the public commons. The legislators are going to make rules that enforce these technological straddles, and the defaults will slowly change in directions you neither anticipate nor enjoy. We shouldn't accept ActivityPub as the end state solution to these problems. If anything, large instances (and thus their owners) will win out, and this just entrenches the status quo of tiny cabals in power censoring things that displease them.
kstrauser 3y ago
> It has the same issue with Reddit's little fiefdoms: moderators still lord over everyone and control speech, the algorithm, your feed, and your freedom. That's a feature, not a bug. Whatever your preferences, there's an ActivityPub instance with moderation you'll like. Want to be in a liberal thought bubble? It's there. Want nothing but all Trump, all the time? They have that. Only the good things about astrology? Yep. Aggressive blocking of anti-science woo? Sure. Moderation decisions are made at the instance level, not the network level. There are instances that take a laissez-faire approach. Others are quite heavy handed. Most are somewhere in the middle. Users can pick which sounds best to them and find servers that align with their wishes.
- grumbel 3y ago
  What if I want something that isn't an echo-chamber?
  - kstrauser 3y ago
    Join one of the instances with looser moderation.
    - xigoi 3y ago
      Suhh instances tend to be put on shared blocklists, effectively making them echo-chambers too.
      - kstrauser 3y ago
        I think that says more about the content of those instances being blocked. If you're transmitting content bad enough to get blocked by a large portion of the fediverse, the problem has more to do with what you're saying than their decision not to hear it.
        xigoi 3y ago
        The problem is the assumption that if you allow someone to say something on yur instance, then you necessarily agree with it.

systemz 3y ago

The larger instances, the larger moderation issues. People are only people so fierce moderation will happen. With smaller instances "blast radius" is smaller and it shouldn't be problematic like in centralized social media.

mariusor 3y ago

> moderators still lord over everyone and control speech, the algorithm, your feed, and your freedom. I can't understand the toxicity of mind that makes people think it's OK to impose others view their own, unwanted points of view. If you're not welcome in a community, join one that would hear you. Why would that be against your "freedom"?

sharperguy 3y ago
I think it's more of an arcitectural issue. If you were a node operator, would you peer with a dedicated racial hatred AP node? What if a small minority of your users complained that you blocked it. With something like nostr, you are free as a relay operator to block whatever makes you feel uncomfortable, while users can just get that content from some other relay without having to create a new account and move their entire social graph over.
- vidarh 3y ago
  This, to me, is an argument against Nostr. To elaborate, I prefer that the barrier is greater.
  - saurik 3y ago
    Because... you are terrified that you might manage to figure out how to access such content, and need to make it extremely difficult for you to do so, even on purpose? (I clearly don't understand.)
    - vidarh 3y ago
      No, because I want to be able to choose to interact with people who are fine with there being barriers to similar types of content. If some feel they have a compelling reason to straddle both, they still can, so it denies them nothing, but sometimes even small extra barriers helps set a tone for communities.
  - echelon 3y ago
    Why should minds be put in jails? Why should we segregate into like-minded and undesirables? We're better than this. I grew up with [x views, y political party], but because the early internet was open and accepting and not at all like this, I was able to see the broader world and wholly new perspectives. Now the bias is to shit on, shame, and block everyone. That's not going to build a better society. The internet pioneers would be aghast at all of the "happy little" censorship happening today. I've been banned from several subreddits for leaving comments in subreddits the moderators dislike. Removed completely by automation. They don't even realize my comments weren't in support of their favorite issue to hate on. Censorship is wrong. Put blinders on your own feed all day long if you so choose, but stop trying to put cages on other people's minds and voices.
    - vidarh 3y ago
      No minds are "put in jails". But they do not have a right to unfettered access to me. I'm free to choose to set standards, and the standard of requiring them to have a second account if they both want access to me and to content I find deplorable is a really low barrier. And others are free to choose to commune with me in the spaces I want to spend time in, and communities are free to set their standards. I've not argued for censorship. I've argued for my right to shield myself very mildly from people I want nothing to do with, and for others to choose to do so with me. You're free to say what you want on your instance or those of people who believe as you do or are fine with your speech. Nobody is stopping your speech, just your ability to impose it on those of us who does not want it near us.
bouncing 3y ago
I would rephrase it: mastodon is full of cliques. The cliques form around moderation, politics, whether they federate with Threads.net, what content warnings are used, and even whether alt text is “required” for images. Then some instances defederate otherwise innocent instances that don’t have sufficient agreement on all those points, regardless of actual content. It is kind of tiring and honestly hard to recommend.
- vidarh 3y ago
  So is Twitter, and every other social network. They just don't give you the tools to clearly delineate boundaries.
  - bouncing 3y ago
    There are debates and groups on other networks. But there aren’t schisms over alt text or content warnings for food on Threads.
    - vidarh 3y ago
      Is it a feature to you that whole sections of society are absent from it? Because otherwise those views would be there.
    - prmoustache 3y ago
      I haven't observed any debates on these topics from my fediverse account so I guess you see them only if you are looking for them.
- M2Ys4U 3y ago
  >I would rephrase it: mastodon is full of cliques. It's social networking. Of course there are going to be cliques. That's what happens when you put a non-trivial number of humans in one space (be it virtual or physical).
yborg 3y ago
They mean the freedom to impose their views on others, because if the ignorant can just be made to hear the 'truth' they will believe it too. Having the ability to remove such toxicity from the much larger community of people who genuinely want share ideas is a strength of the platform, not a weakness.
echelon 3y ago
> I can't understand the toxicity of mind that makes people think it's OK to impose others view their own, unwanted points of view. You're using words like toxic to describe me and you don't even know me. This goes to show the incredibly rotten and highly polarized the status quo has become. Systems that behave the way you're describing are the current norm, and they're broken. You can choose for yourself to ignore me. You can advertise to the world that you ignore me and people can opt into that if they choose. But you shouldn't ever have the right to unilaterally make that call for everyone. Nobody should have that power. Imagine if [opposite viewpoint] could technologically shut you down for everyone else? The systems we design today could enable that tomorrow. Just because you're in a comfortable spot today doesn't mean that eroding rights and freedoms won't ensnare you tomorrow or that the zeitgeist won't change. > If you're not welcome in a community This is also frankly a disturbing trend. Creating little fiefdoms of unacceptance. Who makes you the judge of that? You don't even know what my views and values are, and you're seeking to shun me already. We're all the same. We just sample the world differently. We all need to be more accepting and loving and stop playing petty team sports. In the meantime, you're free to keep on tooting. Nobody is taking Mastodon away from you. It's just not a system I want to spend time or energy advocating for.
- mariusor 3y ago
  > But you shouldn't ever have the right to unilaterally make that call for everyone. In this hypothetical I'm only making the call for the people of my instance, not for everyone. Like I said, you'd be free to join other instances where people are willing to entertain your point of view. The audacity of assuming that the server that I pay and care for should be a vehicle for content that I don't agree with is baffling to me. It's my house, my rules, simple as.
  - echelon 3y ago
    Sure, that's absolutely your right. I just want spaces for me and others where this isn't the default imposed upon everyone. I don't want to subscribe to [x filtering] unless I choose. House rules and filtering should be opt-in and not the default for the public commons. The legislators are going to make rules that enforce these technological straddles, and the defaults will slowly change in directions you neither anticipate nor enjoy. We shouldn't accept ActivityPub as the end state solution to these problems. If anything, large instances (and thus their owners) will win out, and this just entrenches the status quo of tiny cabals in power censoring things that displease them.

kstrauser 3y ago

> It has the same issue with Reddit's little fiefdoms: moderators still lord over everyone and control speech, the algorithm, your feed, and your freedom. That's a feature, not a bug. Whatever your preferences, there's an ActivityPub instance with moderation you'll like. Want to be in a liberal thought bubble? It's there. Want nothing but all Trump, all the time? They have that. Only the good things about astrology? Yep. Aggressive blocking of anti-science woo? Sure. Moderation decisions are made at the instance level, not the network level. There are instances that take a laissez-faire approach. Others are quite heavy handed. Most are somewhere in the middle. Users can pick which sounds best to them and find servers that align with their wishes.

grumbel 3y ago
What if I want something that isn't an echo-chamber?
- kstrauser 3y ago
  Join one of the instances with looser moderation.
  - xigoi 3y ago
    Suhh instances tend to be put on shared blocklists, effectively making them echo-chambers too.
    - kstrauser 3y ago
      I think that says more about the content of those instances being blocked. If you're transmitting content bad enough to get blocked by a large portion of the fediverse, the problem has more to do with what you're saying than their decision not to hear it.
      - xigoi 3y ago
        The problem is the assumption that if you allow someone to say something on yur instance, then you necessarily agree with it.