Posts by jdp23@indieweb.social
(DIR) Post #AWioHJMlKwkIsCW7gu by jdp23@indieweb.social
2023-06-15T16:22:48Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@darnell I'm taking it all with a grain of salt until we actually see the details. For a company like Meta there are legit trust and safety issues to consider with unfettered federation ... and of course there's the EEE factor. In any case I don't think it'll invalidate BS. And it's easy enough to bridge -- in fact once BS starts to grow I wouldn't be surprised if Meta's offering to quite possibly integrate with BS as well. @lrhodes @fancysandwiches @John @inquiline
(DIR) Post #AWn7c3dLhU9ZvFilu4 by jdp23@indieweb.social
2023-06-17T17:50:21Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@tchambers do we know that's the case? I could certainly imagine #meta doing something where people get their own domain, potentially for a small fee, either under p92 or on their own site -- @hrefna has discussed this. And @J12t has observed they've never used the word "federation". Or is there more specific info I haven't heard about yet?Anyhow it also sounds to me like your position of "trust and verify" is giving them the benefit of the doubt.@edendestroyer @fancysandwiches
(DIR) Post #AWn7dnXOW3Yua3lXcG by jdp23@indieweb.social
2023-06-17T18:01:06Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@tchambers Reasonable minds differ, I guess, but to me "trust but verify" means "initially trust unless/until verification fails". And fediblocking sometimes gets used preemptively, for example with Gab, and most recently by many sites with newsie.social when they briefly hosted Newsmax. @edendestroyer @fancysandwiches
(DIR) Post #AWn7fWtPN9kTXJt8Hg by jdp23@indieweb.social
2023-06-17T18:26:52Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@tchambers @misc a unified list of red lines from the instance admins who are considering working with them could maximize your bargaining power (although also gives them a path to making commitments they won't honor to keep you on board)Although as I said in the discussion a while ago, I really don't see how "verify" will work with the kinds of abuses they've routinely done in the past. They've got a long pattern of lying and then stonewalling. @edendestroyer @fancysandwiches
(DIR) Post #AWn7fY8gjpZ7P02qjw by jdp23@indieweb.social
2023-06-17T18:35:46Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@tchambers It comes down to what red lines are. Do you have tools to see if they're running emotion manipulation experiments? If they're using fediverse folks' data without consent to target discriminatory ads? If they're lying about statistics (as they did with video ads)? If their moderation policies on messages from the fediverse disproportionately impact trans people?@misc @edendestroyer @fancysandwiches
(DIR) Post #AWnKqDy7N2wlQyWN1c by jdp23@indieweb.social
2023-06-17T21:23:06Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@clive Good essay! And I appreciated the link out to the paper estimating that moderators do 466 person-hours of work per day, I've seen th $3.4 million/year number tossed around a lot and wondered where it came from.
(DIR) Post #AWnOf4xquLIw8gL0ts by jdp23@indieweb.social
2023-06-17T22:05:51Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@clive agreed, although since tasks like deliberation that don't show up in the moderator logs and isn't counted in the estimate, it's almost certainly a significant underestimate (or a lower bound, as the authors describe it). I found myself wondering if reddit's thinking "hey no prob, we'll just pay for some of the modeation ourself if necessary, it's less than it costs us to support Apollo et al." If so, good luck with that!😂
(DIR) Post #AWnPNheiPp6EsbfIjA by jdp23@indieweb.social
2023-06-17T22:14:21Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@clive not sure if you've seen @sarahgilbert's excellent paper on intersectional moderation. It'd take more than 466 person-hours a week to apply that approach reddit wide! https://arxiv.org/pdf/2305.11250.pdfMore positively I think there's a huge potential opportunity here, to bring a strong moderation focus and tooling to support it to the fediverse - kbin and lemmy most obviously, ideally more broadly as well. We shall see.
(DIR) Post #AWq3ldKUXKqQtY5hui by jdp23@indieweb.social
2023-06-19T00:07:14Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@dredmorbius Yeah really. I've talked with several admins who have described their position with Meta as "trust but verify". First of all why would you trust them? Secondly how on earth do you think you'll verify their bad behavior? smh.
(DIR) Post #AWt8gt8tOq2tjd6P56 by jdp23@indieweb.social
2023-06-20T04:46:12Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@darnell It's certainly a reasonable strategy, but from what we know, they'll be able to communicate with Insta folks from Threads but not from any of the pure-fediverse apps. If that's the case, what's so appealing that it'll outweigh that (and the hassle of setting up a new account and migrating) and bring them over?
(DIR) Post #AWt8guWKHCNu0b4dFI by jdp23@indieweb.social
2023-06-20T05:18:35Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@darnell sorry, I must have given the wrong impression. The leaks all say Threads will be able to communicate with the Fediverse and Instagram, details TBD. But I haven't heard anybody say that the Fediverse will be able to communicate with people on Instagram (who aren't also on Threads).
(DIR) Post #AWtx39ph1O89ZtvyQy by jdp23@indieweb.social
2023-06-20T05:30:54Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@darnell ah okay, that's where we have different expectations. I'd be extremely surprised if they allowed that. Ffrom a business perspective, what do they have to gain from it? And moderation standards here are one good reason not to. But right now who knows ... it's not even clear just what their "integration" with ActivtyPub will be. We shall see! And, thanks as always for the discussion.
(DIR) Post #AWtx3Ne9f5DgQAdxOS by jdp23@indieweb.social
2023-06-20T05:42:08Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@darnell Yeah, there certainly may be exceptions. From a moderation perspective I could maybe imagine them allowing users on a shortlist of vetted servers have some access (at least initially) ... I'm not sure what their incentive would be, but maybe something to do with interoperability mandates? Still it's really hard for to picture them letting single-users servers in -- in fact thinking about it, they might not even allow them access to Threads.
(DIR) Post #AWuAd1JVTIKmzAJHt2 by jdp23@indieweb.social
2023-06-21T02:18:44Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@boyter that may be true from the product perspective, but from the community perspective when Walmart or gentrifiers try to move in the best strategy is to try to block them by any means possible -- once they get in, it's game over.@darnell
(DIR) Post #AWuC7xAt0h7P50alPs by jdp23@indieweb.social
2023-06-21T04:40:12Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@boyter The fediverse is already splintered -- or as @oliphant says there are multiple fediverses. It's hard to know yet if different responses to Meta will cause a schism, but if it does that's a good thing. And who knows, but my guess is that over time more and more people will find the non-surveillance capitalism zone of the fediverse more and more appealing.
(DIR) Post #AWwhJVlyC3mnFLnMdE by jdp23@indieweb.social
2023-06-21T14:22:30Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@JimmyB there's a difference between giving people some heat (which is okay) and telling people to kill themselves (which is not). @thisismissem
(DIR) Post #AWwhJWvDv8mYoL8Gh6 by jdp23@indieweb.social
2023-06-21T14:29:57Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@JimmyB no, but I wasn't sure that you knew just how hot it got. @thisismissem
(DIR) Post #AWwhJY8jOPBIaWSZO4 by jdp23@indieweb.social
2023-06-21T17:09:06Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@JimmyB I very much agree that signing an NDA in this situation was not a good move and deserves criticism. I didn't follow all the conversation but certainly saw examples where admins suddenly got too busy to respond to valid questions.On the other hand, things got hot enough that even people like Dan from Pixelfed -- who *didn't* sign the NDA or go to the meeting -- were getting a lot of abuse. So that's what I was reacting to. Apologies if it seemed otherwise!
(DIR) Post #AWwhJYpcovUajYWpFI by jdp23@indieweb.social
2023-06-21T17:12:13Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@JimmyB I don't think that signing the NDAs was necessarily bad intent, it could easily have been people who weren't thinking about the implications and don't have good advisors who could say "whoa! red flag here!". That said there's a general problem that admins haven't been seeking input from members about what they should do -- this poll by @smallpatatas is very revealing! https://mstdn.patatas.ca/@smallpatatas/110533043724390295
(DIR) Post #AWwtpmh80qK4RggaZ6 by jdp23@indieweb.social
2023-06-21T18:21:17Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
Trust isn't all-or-nothing. They screwed up, and in at least some cases there was already a lack of trust. But it's recoverable. It wouldn't violate NDA to say "I really screwed up, I won't have any more NDA meetings, and I won't do any deals with them before consulting with instance members first."@ophiocephalic @mastodonmigration @JimmyB @smallpatatas