Skip to content

Why Decentralized Social Media Matters

Technology
45 28 0
  • They really are, wished they had more diverse communities like reddit.

    Reddit pretty much only had tech, humour, atheism, racism and cp its first 5 or 6 years as a platform.

  • Decentralization solves some problems, sure, but it creates new and arguably worse problems. Let's take Lemmy for example. Power hungry mods can and do still ban you from communities that you've never interacted with and there's nothing you can do about it. They can and do still remove your posts when they didn't actually break any rules and there's nothing you can do about it. There's still only really 1 big community per topic, because having a dozen tiny communities that all repost the same things but only have a dozen different people commenting on each one just doesn't work, which leads straight back to having centralized social media with centralized mods who control the narrative and bans.

    The point of social media is to interact with people, and splitting up a topic over a dozen tiny barely used instances isn't a better way of doing that than having one big centralized one. The only real benefit of decentralized social media is that it can't just disappear because one company turned it off.

    Reddit turned into a complete shitshow of power abusing mods, agendas being pushed, and circle jerk safe spaces for a particular political sides followers.......but almost every Lemmy instance is the same, many significantly worse in terms of how authoritarian they are.

    Then there's the federation/defederation issue, where the instance you signed up to won't allow you to access some other instances and their communities because the owners/admins don't want you to, yet if you make another account on a different instance and don't hide that you're the same person as the other account, some mods will then ban you for "alt accounts" lol. Much like how reddit had no problem with alt accounts, but some mods and later admins did.

    Most people don't care about decentralization, they just want a place where everyone they disagree with is banned. That's why the left LOVED twitter pre-musk buyout, and then hated it since. That's why the right love truth social, cause there are no left people there. Now that reddit doesn't allow just outright death threats and calls for violence against people they hate, the left who love it are now claiming it's a "right leaning" platform and looking for other places.

    Some of us just want a place with zero bans and where unless you break the law with your speech, zero censorship and moderation. Some of us believe that self moderation is all that's needed - if you don't like what someone is saying, just block them and move on. Don't call for their opinion to be silenced and their access to be taken away.

    If you want a place with no bans, then start up your own instance. Nobody can ban you. Sure they could defederate from you, but they couldn’t ban you.

    If you want a platform that can’t ban anyone AND can’t block anyone, well you could make your own platform but I wouldn’t expect many to join you because nobody wants that.

    We have the freedom to say what we want. We don’t have the freedom to force people to hear it though.

  • If you want a place with no bans, then start up your own instance. Nobody can ban you. Sure they could defederate from you, but they couldn’t ban you.

    If you want a platform that can’t ban anyone AND can’t block anyone, well you could make your own platform but I wouldn’t expect many to join you because nobody wants that.

    We have the freedom to say what we want. We don’t have the freedom to force people to hear it though.

    The point is that everyone else can still ban you. I’m not sure you even understood my original post if that’s your response.

    Here we don’t have the freedom to say why we want, because you’ll be banned instantly for saying many things that aren’t even controversial unless you’re deep inside one political side.

  • You can already block instances in your profile. Just block feddit.org , never hear from me again, but also you won't see much german content. And you can deselect languages in your profile, too.

    Just FYI: blocking instances only blocks the communities on the instances, not the users if they post outside of their instance.

    Example: If you blocked Pawb.Social, you'd still see this comment from me on Lemmy.World.

  • I feel like you didn’t even read my post, as every sentence you wrote was already addressed.

    Where did you address them? You just claim that

    almost every Lemmy instance is the same, many significantly worse in terms of how authoritarian they are

    Without any explanation for why that would be the case whereas I have not have at all had the same experience. Therefore, I don't see how it relates to federated social media at all.

    Furthermore, you just state that

    some of us just want a place with zero bans and which unless you break the law with your speech, zero bans and moderation

    And to just "block them and move on". Honestly, I don't want my time using social media to be spent having to personally block multiple accounts (by people who will probably make more accounts) because they're racists, misogynists, foreign bot farms, etc. Furthermore, I don't want my content and my comments to be used, knowingly or otherwise, to prop up comment sections and threads that are spreading disinformation and bigotry.

    If you want that, that's fine. Go to one of those places. But from what I've seen, they are usually where nazis end up congregating, which is one reason why I (and at least some other people) prefer to avoid them.

  • Where did you address them? You just claim that

    almost every Lemmy instance is the same, many significantly worse in terms of how authoritarian they are

    Without any explanation for why that would be the case whereas I have not have at all had the same experience. Therefore, I don't see how it relates to federated social media at all.

    Furthermore, you just state that

    some of us just want a place with zero bans and which unless you break the law with your speech, zero bans and moderation

    And to just "block them and move on". Honestly, I don't want my time using social media to be spent having to personally block multiple accounts (by people who will probably make more accounts) because they're racists, misogynists, foreign bot farms, etc. Furthermore, I don't want my content and my comments to be used, knowingly or otherwise, to prop up comment sections and threads that are spreading disinformation and bigotry.

    If you want that, that's fine. Go to one of those places. But from what I've seen, they are usually where nazis end up congregating, which is one reason why I (and at least some other people) prefer to avoid them.

    I addressed them first by saying that with decentralised there are just *more * mods who can and will ban you unfairly and with no recourse, and other mods/admin who literally get to decide what instances you can even see in the first place. Most of them just defederate from any instance that doesn’t highly censor views they don’t like. Many already decided to defederate from any meta instances that ever join the fediverse ffs.

    Lemmy moderation is even more authoritarian because of how Lemmy started in the first place, and then because of the mods who moved from Reddit to here. They hated that their power was taken away on Reddit so they jumped ship and now get to make their own rules without having to answer to Reddit admins.

    If you don’t ban people they don’t need to create multiple accounts. You just block and move on and they’ll continue doing their thing while you don’t see it. Win-win.

    You’re a typical “everyone I disagree with is a Nazi bigot” who craves censorship and authoritarian leadership because you can’t handle people having differing opinions by the looks of it. You talk as if “Nazis” are everywhere lol. If you can’t even be in the same virtual space as a “nazi” without losing your mind the issue is with you.

  • The point is that everyone else can still ban you. I’m not sure you even understood my original post if that’s your response.

    Here we don’t have the freedom to say why we want, because you’ll be banned instantly for saying many things that aren’t even controversial unless you’re deep inside one political side.

    I haven’t had that experience here. I’ve had some unpleasant dustups with some leftists here but beyond having comments removed for being pro capitalist by .ml admins, I haven’t had any issues with moderation. Sure I’ve been heavily downvoted but I’ve never gotten banned.

  • I addressed them first by saying that with decentralised there are just *more * mods who can and will ban you unfairly and with no recourse, and other mods/admin who literally get to decide what instances you can even see in the first place. Most of them just defederate from any instance that doesn’t highly censor views they don’t like. Many already decided to defederate from any meta instances that ever join the fediverse ffs.

    Lemmy moderation is even more authoritarian because of how Lemmy started in the first place, and then because of the mods who moved from Reddit to here. They hated that their power was taken away on Reddit so they jumped ship and now get to make their own rules without having to answer to Reddit admins.

    If you don’t ban people they don’t need to create multiple accounts. You just block and move on and they’ll continue doing their thing while you don’t see it. Win-win.

    You’re a typical “everyone I disagree with is a Nazi bigot” who craves censorship and authoritarian leadership because you can’t handle people having differing opinions by the looks of it. You talk as if “Nazis” are everywhere lol. If you can’t even be in the same virtual space as a “nazi” without losing your mind the issue is with you.

    then because of the mods who moved from Reddit to here. They hated that their power was taken away on Reddit so they jumped ship and now get to make their own rules without having to answer to Reddit admins

    Combined with your earlier comments, this seems like saying that moderators only moved to Lemmy because they wanted more power which seems almost revisionist. Moderating is a shitty job, a lot of people do it just because they care about their online communities, and many moderators moved from Reddit to Lemmy specifically because they cared about their communities and how what Reddit was doing was ruining them.

    Most of them just defederate from any instance that doesn’t highly censor views they don’t like

    So, what is your alternative? We should force people to be on platforms that they don't want and have to spend all day blocking people who thrives on antagonizing them? You can just go on those other instances, you don't have to interact with the ones that are, in your words, so authoritarian.

    If you don’t ban people they don’t need to create multiple accounts. You just block and move on and they’ll continue doing their thing while you don’t see it. Win-win.

    Why wouldn't they create more accounts to get around the blocks? Not to mention other reasons for making more accounts, for example making it seem like your opinion has more widespread support than it actually does.

    You’re a typical “everyone I disagree with is a Nazi bigot” who craves censorship and authoritarian leadership because you can’t handle people having differing opinions by the looks of it

    And now it sounds like you ran out of things to say, so the only thing left is to try and discredit my character. I am fine with people having different opinions than I do, that's how the world works, but it sounds to me like you're suggesting that discussing income tax rates is the same as disagreeing with someone about whether genocide is acceptable or not. They're not the same thing. Having good-faith discourse and pushing disinformation are not the same thing.

    It should be on the onus of the person being a dick to stop being a dick to get to interact with others in their communities, not for the people who aren't being dicks to spend a bunch of their time and energy having to filter out all the dicks. If you disagree with that, you can whenever you want, go to a different community where people have the same opinion as you, but saying that people only want moderation because they can't handle someone else's opinion without "losing their minds" sounds disingenuous at best.

  • Reddit pretty much only had tech, humour, atheism, racism and cp its first 5 or 6 years as a platform.

    So, we're right on track?

  • So, we're right on track?

    Yeah we're kinda doing well. Retaining 50k mau from the initial user burst is really good and Lemmy was technologically really bad at the time. Its a lot more developed today. I think next time reddit fucks uo we spike to over 100k users and steadily grow from there.

  • $20 for us citizens

    Technology technology
    1
    0 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    0 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • Catbox.moe got screwed 😿

    Technology technology
    40
    55 Stimmen
    40 Beiträge
    2 Aufrufe
    archrecord@lemm.eeA
    I'll gladly give you a reason. I'm actually happy to articulate my stance on this, considering how much I tend to care about digital rights. Services that host files should not be held responsible for what users upload, unless: The service explicitly caters to illegal content by definition or practice (i.e. the if the website is literally titled uploadyourcsamhere[.]com then it's safe to assume they deliberately want to host illegal content) The service has a very easy mechanism to remove illegal content, either when asked, or through simple monitoring systems, but chooses not to do so (catbox does this, and quite quickly too) Because holding services responsible creates a whole host of negative effects. Here's some examples: Someone starts a CDN and some users upload CSAM. The creator of the CDN goes to jail now. Nobody ever wants to create a CDN because of the legal risk, and thus the only providers of CDNs become shady, expensive, anonymously-run services with no compliance mechanisms. You run a site that hosts images, and someone decides they want to harm you. They upload CSAM, then report the site to law enforcement. You go to jail. Anybody in the future who wants to run an image sharing site must now self-censor to try and not upset any human being that could be willing to harm them via their site. A social media site is hosting the posts and content of users. In order to be compliant and not go to jail, they must engage in extremely strict filtering, otherwise even one mistake could land them in jail. All users of the site are prohibited from posting any NSFW or even suggestive content, (including newsworthy media, such as an image of bodies in a warzone) and any violation leads to an instant ban, because any of those things could lead to a chance of actually illegal content being attached. This isn't just my opinion either. Digital rights organizations such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation have talked at length about similar policies before. To quote them: "When social media platforms adopt heavy-handed moderation policies, the unintended consequences can be hard to predict. For example, Twitter’s policies on sexual material have resulted in posts on sexual health and condoms being taken down. YouTube’s bans on violent content have resulted in journalism on the Syrian war being pulled from the site. It can be tempting to attempt to “fix” certain attitudes and behaviors online by placing increased restrictions on users’ speech, but in practice, web platforms have had more success at silencing innocent people than at making online communities healthier." Now, to address the rest of your comment, since I don't just want to focus on the beginning: I think you have to actively moderate what is uploaded Catbox does, and as previously mentioned, often at a much higher rate than other services, and at a comparable rate to many services that have millions, if not billions of dollars in annual profits that could otherwise be spent on further moderation. there has to be swifter and stricter punishment for those that do upload things that are against TOS and/or illegal. The problem isn't necessarily the speed at which people can be reported and punished, but rather that the internet is fundamentally harder to track people on than real life. It's easy for cops to sit around at a spot they know someone will be physically distributing illegal content at in real life, but digitally, even if you can see the feed of all the information passing through the service, a VPN or Tor connection will anonymize your IP address in a manner that most police departments won't be able to track, and most three-letter agencies will simply have a relatively low success rate with. There's no good solution to this problem of identifying perpetrators, which is why platforms often focus on moderation over legal enforcement actions against users so frequently. It accomplishes the goal of preventing and removing the content without having to, for example, require every single user of the internet to scan an ID (and also magically prevent people from just stealing other people's access tokens and impersonating their ID) I do agree, however, that we should probably provide larger amounts of funding, training, and resources, to divisions who's sole goal is to go after online distribution of various illegal content, primarily that which harms children, because it's certainly still an issue of there being too many reports to go through, even if many of them will still lead to dead ends. I hope that explains why making file hosting services liable for user uploaded content probably isn't the best strategy. I hate to see people with good intentions support ideas that sound good in practice, but in the end just cause more untold harms, and I hope you can understand why I believe this to be the case.
  • 21 Stimmen
    6 Beiträge
    2 Aufrufe
    sentient_loom@sh.itjust.worksS
    I want to read his "Meaning of the City" because I just like City theory, but I keep postponing in case it's just Christian morality lessons. The anarchist Christian angle makes this sound more interesting.
  • 93 Stimmen
    42 Beiträge
    0 Aufrufe
    G
    You don’t understand. The tracking and spying is the entire point of the maneuver. The ‘children are accessing porn’ thing is just a Trojan horse to justify the spying. I understand what are you saying, I simply don't consider to check if a law is applied as a Trojan horse in itself. I would agree if the EU had said to these sites "give us all the the access log, a list of your subscriber, every data you gather and a list of every IP it ever connected to your site", and even this way does not imply that with only the IP you could know who the user is without even asking the telecom company for help. So, is it a Trojan horse ? Maybe, it heavily depend on how the EU want to do it. If they just ask "show me how you try to avoid that a minor access your material", which normally is the fist step, I don't see how it could be a Trojan horse. It could become, I agree on that. As you pointed out, it’s already illegal for them to access it, and parents are legally required to prevent their children from accessing it. No, parents are not legally required to prevent it. The seller (or provider) is legally required. It is a subtle but important difference. But you don’t lock down the entire population, or institute pre-crime surveillance policies, just because some parents are not going to follow the law. True. You simply impose laws that make mandatories for the provider to check if he can sell/serve something to someone. I mean asking that the cashier of mall check if I am an adult when I buy a bottle of wine is no different than asking to Pornhub to check if the viewer is an adult. I agree that in one case is really simple and in the other is really hard (and it is becoming harder by the day). You then charge the guilty parents after the offense. Ok, it would work, but then how do you caught the offendind parents if not checking what everyone do ? Is it not simpler to try to prevent it instead ?
  • Microsoft pulls MS365 Business Premium from nonprofits

    Technology technology
    37
    1
    47 Stimmen
    37 Beiträge
    3 Aufrufe
    S
    That's the thing, I wish we could just switch all enterprises to Linux, but Microsoft developed a huge ecosystem that really does have good features. Unless something comparable comes up in the Linux world, I don't see Europe becoming independent of Microsoft any time soon
  • 1 Stimmen
    14 Beiträge
    4 Aufrufe
    T
    ...is this some sort of joke my Nordic brain can't understand? I need to go hug a councilman.
  • 0 Stimmen
    6 Beiträge
    0 Aufrufe
    L
    Divide and conquer. Non state-actors and special interest have a far easier time attacking a hundred small entities than one big one. Because people have much less bandwidth to track all this shit than it is to spread it around. See ALEC and the strategy behind state rights. In the end this is about economic power. The only way to curb it is through a democratic government. Lemmy servers too can be bought and sold and the communities captured that grew on them.
  • 12 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    1 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet