I think that tech companies taking a stand on what their employees and/or users believe in is a reasonable thing.
How would that actually work? Like, you’d have pro-Trump and anti-Trump companies that only employ pro- and anti-Trump employees and only serve pro- and anti-Trump customers? What happens when someone who is basically pro-Trump thinks that ICE goes too far?
To me, this feels like school politics.
OMG! Jaden invited ICE to his birthday party! I’m never talking to him again!
Oh No! ICE nabbed Julio! I’m telling the teacher and they will get suspended!
Probably a good number of these people are actual children. I know there are adults who have broadly similar ideas. For someone living a very sheltered and privileged life, being trolled on the internet is the absolute worst form of aggression they ever experience. Particularly in Europe, activists and politicians talk about “digital violence”, which tells you that they have no sense of proportion.
Trump being able to clone Mastodon is not the same as letting Trump on Mastodon.social
The Mastodon devs made a choice in releasing it as open source. They could have decided to pick and chose who is allowed to use it. It was completely foreseeable, that the software would be used for something like Gab or Truth.Social. When they release update, they know that these will also be used by such services.
This is merely a statement of fact, not criticism. They chose not to exercise power or become arbiters of good and evil. That is laudable.
Bluesky is a centralized platform and their mods don’t ban Nazis.
I get it. You feel that tech companies should deny service to bad people. For example, to a government agency acting on behalf of a president elected by a solid majority of the popular vote.
I agree that the voters got it wrong, but I don’t think that the rich and powerful vetoing voters will lead to good outcomes. Look at medieval Europe. Life got better with democracy, not with a supposedly more just king.
The tech lord most in line with your ideas is Elon Musk, except that he’s kinda nazi. So, on a purely practical note, it doesn’t seem very likely that tech companies being more political would lessen racism.
Do you think it would be better if all the billionaires, who are probably mostly non-nazi, were activist like him?
So, trying to parse what’s going on here.
Bluesky has verified that an account claiming to belong to the US government agency ICE really is controlled by that agency. Somehow that shows that Mastodon is better. Because Trump has his own Mastodon instance and doesn’t need anyone to vouch for his goons?
Looking at the comments, maybe the issue is rather that the Bluesky company provides services to ICE. Tech companies should refuse service. Huh. I guess there is more diversity of opinion on Lemmy than I had thought, regarding the power of tech companies, democracy, and law.
Good pitch. You could also ask people to help out with the more expensive computations. Say, adding alt text.
In the client, you wouldn’t need to be sorting and running extensive calculations on all data. You could, e.g, build the front-page by indexing/scoring posts and comments that have been created since your last visit with a hard cap on some time window (last 48h) or total data points (e.g, keep only the most recent 10k objects in a local hot database, freeze/archive everyhing else.)
Absolutely. There’s a lot you can do. The “For You” Feed on Bluesky is quite instructive. https://bsky.app/profile/spacecowboy17.bsky.social/post/3mb2r5qei322a
But when you’re talking about sending a lot more data to clients, you really need to consider what that means for the internet bill of instance owners.
Embrace content sorting and filtering algorithms, but on the client side, with optional control by the user.
You can only filter and sort what was downloaded by the client. So that runs into resource constraints.
Standardize tags on all content. So many of the different ways different platforms classify or organize content can be implemented as tags, which increases interoperability between them.
I’m so with you. https://xkcd.com/927/
Transferable user identity (between instances)
User identity and authentication as separate service from social network instance
That’s more the ATproto/Bluesky vision.
I agree with everything. The thing is, I’ve been thinking about the psychology behind this lately.
When Fedi-Fans complain about Bluesky, it is usually based on the misunderstanding that it also is instance based. It really doesn’t seem to occur to many that things might be done differently. But I think it may go a little deeper.
A common complaint is that it’s too expensive to run a full relay. People want to self-host it all. They want to feel that they are in control and don’t need anyone. It’s not particularly rational but people do lots of silly things chasing that feeling. The rational start would be to move somewhere remote and grow your own food. Instead, people buy a pick-up truck or degoogle their phone.
That architecture also appeals to a more tribal mindset. An instance is “our” place. We just pull up the drawbridge when bad people come and we are safe here in “our” castle.
I think to some people that is more appealing than the more open design of atproto.
On Bluesky, there is all this waffle about some people trying to get someone banned. They might find such tribal architecture more appealing.
I’d argue that the modular design is a more radical approach to decentralization.
Yes, but only if you can do without instances. Instances seem to be important to many in the Fediverse.
I realize my title has little to do with the post
I was going to say. Red dwarf is the name of a ship and Constellation is a class of ship. In any case, you can’t have a proper ship without a bridge.
Yes, but that doesn’t seem sufficient for some. Conservatives certainly would like to remove trans people from the public completely. Aside: It’s foolish for trans people to copy these tactics, assuming this comes organically from the trans community. These people are certainly acting like the heels in some right-wing propaganda play.
Bluesky offers several ways in which users can remove unwanted content from their experience. Easiest is for users to block Singal; banning him from their personal part of the network. Blocklists can be shared easily. Users can also spin up their own moderation service.
I probably shouldn’t go into the details of what Bluesky can do on a technical level. Incidentally, that blog post contains errors.
In short: On a technical level, the Bluesky company can greatly reduce the visibility of someone. But they would likely run into legal problems if they used that on Singal. The EU regulates what can be done quite strictly. Maybe they could benefit from some industry friendly “loopholes”. I’d have to look that up.
That needs a longer explanation.
An instance does not interact with all other instances. It only syncs with other instances when users follow someone there, join a community, …
But that’s also a problem. It means you can’t search the entire Fediverse from a particular instance and find new and interesting discussions and people. There is no discovery feed. For that, you need something like Bluesky’s relay. That relay actually does keep up with what everyone is posting and archives it.
But that’s one aspect of Bluesky that draws a lot of criticism by Fedi people. A full relay is expensive to run and not something anyone can self-host. Pruned down versions are doable, though. If everyone actually did run their own relay, then one would get you the combinatorial problem.
In practice, large instances are the Fediverse solution to the discovery problem. You can see what the many users on that instance post. Also, the many users subscribe to many things and so a large instance will cache much content from elsewhere. That architecture encourages centralization.
There’s other difficult issues. So you have a little server that serves your content to a few followers. Some celebrity with millions of followers would have to rent an entire server rack. But what if little old you interacts with a celeb and now all their followers try to fetch your content from your little server? Common problem. You just need caching. EG the celebrity rack also serves your content to their followers and takes the load off your server. But now whoever is doing the caching can also filter replies. There’s no simply solution there.
Yes. On Bluesky, they could be individually muted or blocked. You can make and share blocklists, make your own custom feeds that exclude such posters, or even create your own moderation service that removes (or blurs, …) posts for your subscribers. Obviously, that is not satisfactory for some people.
Yes. It’s only a problem if you expect or want the Fediverse to be the future of social media, which it isn’t.
This does raise a question relevant to the Fediverse. Some Bluesky users are lobbying to have Jesse Singal banned, whoever that is. Of course, a hallmark of a decentralized network is that there is no central authority that could actually do that. Implicitly, this demand is a rejection of the very concept of decentralization.
Once people find out what decentralization means, are they even willing to tolerate it?
Bad rant. Wrong on technical aspects and self-contradictory. Anyway, off-topic here.
Many things are fundamentally feasible. I see 2 things you argue for.
One is changing the caching strategy. I don’t think that’s wise in terms of load sharing, but certainly feasible on a small scale. In certain circumstances, it may be preferred.
The other thing is using older protocols and standards. The practical reason to do this would be to use existing tooling, libraries, code. I’m not seeing such opportunities. I’m not that familiar with these, but it seems like they would have to be extended anyway. So I don’t really see the point.
At a minimum this is adding the number of instances that federate a given content streams to the multiple of storage needed to host the content, even if that storage is ephemeral. Not so big a problem at 100,000 users, but at 100,000,000 users this is a lot of storage cost we are talking about. Unless somehow the user/client doesnt cache the content they pull from an instance locally on their device when they view it?
Worry more about the bandwidth. Your instance would have to serve your content to all these 100M users. The way it is, much of the load goes to the instance where a user is registered. That means that an instance can control hosting costs by closing registrations.
My point was this isn’t an issue when all content is self-hosted, because the author as the host can edit, delete, or migrate all they want and maintain full direct control over the source of that content the client interacts with whenever a pull request comes in. Yes the user Caches the content when they read it, but there is no intermediary copy.
There’s the fundamental problem. What you think of as “your” data, other people think of as “their” data. That can’t be resolved. What’s worse is that controlling “your” data requires controlling other people’s computers and devices, as with DRM.
You never want to know how the sausage is made.