Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   ophiocephalic 🐍 (ophiocephalic@kolektiva.social)'s status on Sunday, 07-Jan-2024 15:35:12 JST ophiocephalic 🐍

   • Tokyo Outsider (337ppm)
   • misfit loser zealot patatas

   @tokyo_0 @smallpatatas
   Respectfully, Meta is not remotely "just like the others", it is unquestionably a threat of a magnitude far beyond any other faced by the fedi. Gab didn't have a man in the ActivityPub project, or it's co-author bought over to their side. Gab didn't have $30 billion to piss away on a misfire called the Gabaverse. We're talking about an entity that has made a credible pass at privatizing the entire internet, all by itself. It will eat the fediverse for lunch if it wants to. It's an unprecedented threat and requires an unprecedented defense strategy, if we are to preserve the values of community-centered, decentralized autonomous social media

   • Embed this notice
     ophiocephalic 🐍 (ophiocephalic@kolektiva.social)'s status on Sunday, 07-Jan-2024 15:39:17 JST ophiocephalic 🐍

     • Tokyo Outsider (337ppm)
     • misfit loser zealot patatas

     @tokyo_0 @smallpatatas
     Your comment was directed at @smallpatatas suggestion at consent-based federation, was it not?

   • Embed this notice
     ophiocephalic 🐍 (ophiocephalic@kolektiva.social)'s status on Sunday, 07-Jan-2024 15:47:05 JST ophiocephalic 🐍

     • Tokyo Outsider (337ppm)
     • misfit loser zealot patatas

     @tokyo_0 @smallpatatas
     You addressed 2 posts to @smallpatatas directly by tagging him at the top, other tags at the bottom, seemingly directly stating allow-list federation was "overkill" and that Meta "can be dealt with just like the others". Those were the comments I was addressing. I agree that we should be aiming together at the Zuckerbros

   • Embed this notice
     Jon (jdp23@blahaj.zone)'s status on Sunday, 07-Jan-2024 15:48:54 JST Jon

     • Alexey Skobkin
     • Tokyo Outsider (337ppm)
     • misfit loser zealot patatas
     • FinchHaven sfba

     The fediverse hasn't yet encountered an untrustworthy actor with Meta's scale and resources. The closest to date has been Gab, and maybe the approach of mass defederation that worked very effectively with Gab would have also worked with Threads. Instances that federate with Meta aren't using that tool this time, and instances that reject Meta are, so it's potentially an interesting natural experiment.
     
     Of course that's not the only possible tool, and by itself it certainly isn't enough. Even putting Meta's maliciousness aside, their arrival here means things are going to grow by orders of magnified, so tools that have been effective to date almost certainly won't be sufficient in the post-Threads fediverse(s). As Evan points out "Big Fedi" advocates assume racist automated moderation technology as solving content moderation problems. I don't think it's likely to work particularly well on fedi (it doesn't work particularly well anywhere else, and also the algorithms is anti-LGBTQIA2S+ as well as racist).
     
     A differeent approach, which seems more promising to me, is to start with what works well today on well-moderated fedi instances, and look at what it will take to get it to work in this new environment. So I think a lot of instances that want to be relatively safe and friendly to LGBTQIA2S+ people are likely to move in the directions @smallpatatas@mstdn.patatas.ca describes whether or not they federate with Threads.
     
     - Well-moderated instances today rely on instance-blocking of known bad actors. Even if the hate speech and harassment coming directly from Threads can be managed by existing tools,with one orders of magnitude more instances than today's 20,000 (and new ones popping up all the time) then it's hard for me to see how today's blocklist-based approaches will work. Consent-based federation has its own challenges but "Everybody (including nazis and terfs) can federate and send instances to anybody on the instance until they're told they can't" is always going to be higher-risk than "Everybody (including nazis and terfs) has to get permission to federate and to send people who aren't following them messages or tag them or reply to them."
     
     - cluster-level visibility is an extension of local-only posts: visible to (some) people you don't have a follow relationships with but not public. Any information that's published as an unprotected web page is available to everybody (including nazis and terfs and Meta and Google) and there is a lot of stuff that I would rather not share with everybody (including ....) Of course, I also want to be able to have discussions with people on my instance, and more broadly with people who aren't on my instance -- that's the potential of federation. Today "public" and "unlisted" are the only option for cross-instance discussions, and a lot of people don't even have access to local only discussions, so most stuff is completely public. But that's an artifact of today's fedi functionality, and I thiink a lot of people would prefer an environment where most stuff *isn't* completely public.
     
     @skobkin@lor.sh @FinchHaven@sfba.social @tokyo_0@mas.to

   • Embed this notice
     ophiocephalic 🐍 (ophiocephalic@kolektiva.social)'s status on Sunday, 07-Jan-2024 15:57:09 JST ophiocephalic 🐍

     • Tokyo Outsider (337ppm)
     • misfit loser zealot patatas

     @tokyo_0 @smallpatatas
     On the contrary, what we suggest is the fediverse in its natural but as yet incomplete state. Why do you think community-controlled autonomous decentralized social media is something the fediverse isn't?

   • Embed this notice
     Jon (jdp23@blahaj.zone)'s status on Sunday, 07-Jan-2024 15:57:31 JST Jon

     • Alexey Skobkin
     • Tokyo Outsider (337ppm)
     • misfit loser zealot patatas
     • FinchHaven sfba

     Local-only posts don't exist in Mastodon because of Eugen, full stop. Glitch implemented local only posts in 2017, Hometown in 2018 or so, there is no excuse for them not to be in the main code base. I get very irritated about this!
     
     
     @tokyo_0@mas.to @skobkin@lor.sh @smallpatatas@mstdn.patatas.ca @FinchHaven@sfba.social

   • Embed this notice
     Jon (jdp23@blahaj.zone)'s status on Sunday, 07-Jan-2024 16:55:45 JST Jon

     • Tokyo Outsider (337ppm)
     • misfit loser zealot patatas

     I see it more as an opportunity to help today's fediverse evolve (which means transforming into something that it isn't today) in ways that build on what it's best at while also addressing what it's not so good at. The discussion we had about how I see it as unleashing energy to make progress on moving instances is an example. Similarly on the consent and privacy stuff, and that's a direction the fediverse should be moving in, the focus on Meta highlights the urgency.
     
     On "they can scrape it all anyway", I agree that's language that Meta shills use as justification for just giving it to them. But that's not how I took @smallpatatas@mstdn.patatas.ca comment. I saw it more as the opposite, acknowledging that reality and suggesting a couple of things that could be done about it. @tokyo_0@mas.to, you may well be right that they're overkill for the problem we have right now, but my view is they're good things in general for the fediverses so now's a good time to channel the energy in that direction.
     
     @ophiocephalic@kolektiva.social