Post AmCv6iY2PLvRXJi6KW by dmitri@social.coop
(DIR) More posts by dmitri@social.coop
(DIR) Post #AmBjrc1x43MgKDKxeq by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2024-09-20T07:58:46Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
In a recent rant on SocialHub I said;"Let’s make it trivial to connect all the things, while also making it easier for people to control who they connect with using the things."https://socialhub.activitypub.rocks/t/a-brief-and-unromantic-history-of-activitypub/4531What I was getting a false binary, which I suspect is underlying the arguments on both sides of ongoing debates around social web federation. Like the pros and cons of federating with Meta's mega-server, or bridges to Nostr and BlueSky.(1/?)#SocialWeb #fediverse #federation
(DIR) Post #AmBjrcxNcXInCKCpAe by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2024-09-20T07:58:47Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
What is this false binary? In a nutshell; it's federated, or it isn't.The assumption on one side goes that if Alice's server federates with Bob's server, at all, then they're effectively one big server. People using Bob's server can talk at anyone on Alice's server whether they like it or not. Bob's server has a copy of every post made by anyone on Alice's server.In this way of thinking, to federate is to give up all distinctions and social boundaries between two servers. (2/?)
(DIR) Post #AmBjrdkIgeQxe35tQG by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2024-09-20T07:58:47Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
The assumption on the other side is that if server operators have any power to limit contact between accounts on their server, and those on other servers (ie to moderate), it's not true federation. Any filtering of other servers beyond the most minimalist spam control, and they're right back where they were in the Walled Gardens. Needing implicit permission from unknown others to speak freely.(Although most people who think like this have probably decamped to Nostr by now)(3/?)
(DIR) Post #AmBjreHcgl5ZJOgVMW by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2024-09-20T07:58:47Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
This first group are probably thinking about server federation as a digital form of political federation. Which *is* a hard binary.Either your affinity group is part of a formal federation with other groups, or it isn't. Joining implies some level of endorsement of the politics of the other affiliated groups, and vice-versa.(4/?)
(DIR) Post #AmBjryThbYdPweUQy0 by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2024-09-20T07:58:47Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
What I want this group to understand is that joining a federation of Social Web servers is more like moving into a house in a city street. Where anyone can put up posters on the lamp posts for everyone in the street to see. All without any level of endorsement of your neighbours politics. But with the advantage that because it's a digital space, you can mute people or groups whose posters you don't want to see, while still allowing them to see yours ; )(5/?)
(DIR) Post #AmBjsHZMcjS99iHivg by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2024-09-20T07:58:48Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
The other group are probably clinging to a cyber-utopian vision of the net as the global village. Where all the world's problems can be hammered out, as long as everyone can talk to everyone else, without interference or censorship.I get it. I do. I came onto the net believing exactly this. But my experiences with running an open publishing activist news site taught me otherwise. Sadly, the social reality of online spaces is more complicated than that.(6/?)
(DIR) Post #AmBjsj4UN7OQS43Sgy by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2024-09-20T07:58:48Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
What I want everyone to understand is that federation doesn't have to be a hard binary. There are mutually beneficial ways to federate all Social Web servers, while still giving people using them granular control over the experiences they have there.When people trust in their control over what social software is bringing into their headspace, they're more capable of engaging with opinions they disagree with, and working on win-win solutions to social and political problems.(7/?)
(DIR) Post #AmBjtAjtVHYYGIdPTk by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2024-09-20T07:58:48Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
I recently came up with a simple rating system for the fediverse. Which would allow responsible servers hosts to flag their own approach to federation, and crowdsource flags for servers whose own flags (if any) can't be trusted.This would allow a lot of federation and moderation decisions to be automated without requiring any kind centralised directory. As well as advising people who are creating accounts, on what servers might suit their needs, and vice-versa.Watch this space...(8/8)
(DIR) Post #AmCv6iY2PLvRXJi6KW by dmitri@social.coop
2024-09-20T21:39:49Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@strypey I totally agree with you. All of the hand-wringing of "shall we defederate $whatever" only occurs because we haven't built in sufficient access control and moderation tools into the Fediverse. It's _that_ which needs to be fixed asap.
(DIR) Post #AmkuJ7D3dlZAeK9IJc by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2024-10-07T07:11:08Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@dmitri> All of the hand-wringing of "shall we defederate $whatever" only occurs because we haven't built in sufficient access control and moderation tools into the FediverseThat's one of a number of things Zot was way better at than any other social protocol I've evaluated. Have a look at the FEPs that bring features of the Zot protocol into ActivityPub. I believe Mike MacGirvin is Implementing them in Forte.