Evan Prodromou
Thanks to everyone who responded here.
I am a qualified no.
I think there are parts of the Fediverse that can benefit from coordination, like how the SocialCG coordinates work on ActivityPub and Activity Streams 2.0, how IFTAS coordinates trust and safety work, and how Fedipact coordinates blocking Threads.
Evan Prodromou
Using shared denylists or allowlists to control which servers can federate and which can't is also a way to shape the social structure of the Fediverse. I think shared services for filtering spam, harassment and abuse may take this down to the account and content levels.
Evan Prodromou
I also think that diverse governance models is a key advantage of the fediverse. I love that I'm on a cooperative-run social media service, and I love that families, friend groups, universities and enterprises run their own services on the fediverse. This is awesome and should be encouraged.
Evan Prodromou
But I don't think there should or maybe even can be a single org governing all parts of the Fediverse, saying how the protocols and software packages can work, which people and communities and platforms are allowed to connect, what can be done and said.
You can't spell Fediverse without "diverse".
Evan Prodromou
@darius I think encouraging various forms of governance on the Fediverse is awesome. I also think we're probably going to see many, many more offline entities like universities, local governments, postal services, and enterprises setting up their own instances. What do you think an Organization to Promote Fediverse Governance Models would do, though?
Darius Kazemi
@evan missed the poll but my answer is there should not be an organization to govern the fediverse; there should however be at least one organization to enable many forms of governance in the fediverse
Evan Prodromou
@jenesuispasgoth I don't understand the point of your scare quotes or smiley emoticon. I think you should decide what it is you want to ask, and ask it directly.
Je ne suis pas goth
@evan did this poll stem from something you saw or heard? Or was it "just" you wondering about the fediverse's opinion? :)
Darius Kazemi
@evan great question. I think: build resources for groups that want to govern (like the IFTAS library does for moderation), build tools for governance (third party and supporting PRs to major software, again kinda like IFTAS here), and advocate as necessary in standards groups for the needs of groups that want to self govern (just like.... okay these parentheticals are getting repetitive)
Evan Prodromou
@darius So, I get that, but I think it's more likely that we'd see advocacy for particular governance structures. Say, a Federation of University Social Networks, which focuses on the needs of those kinds of instances, and a different Alliance of Cooperative Social Platforms, and so on. Unsupported crystal ball prediction; take it for what it's worth.
Evan Prodromou
@jenesuispasgoth I can say that there is a big section on SocialHub about governance. A lot of people were concerned that the Social Web Foundation was an effort to set up a governance organization. Also, Bluesky is governed by a single startup. All these things got me thinking about Fediverse-wide governance. Does that answer your question?
Evan Prodromou
@jenesuispasgoth oh, cool. I didn't have much of an agenda, except that I somewhat disagree with this idea, and I wanted to see some discussion about it.
Je ne suis pas goth
@evan sorry if I wasn't clear, there really was no hidden question. I really was wondering if that was just you wondering, or if it was in reaction to something you read or heard wrt the fediverse (something I myself hadn't read or heard).
GNU social JP is a social network, courtesy of GNU social JP管理人. It runs on GNU social, version 2.0.2-dev, available under the GNU Affero General Public License.
All GNU social JP content and data are available under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license.