Meta is building a decentralized, text-based social network • Hacker News Board

Re: Meta is building a decentralized, text-based social network

#271

Post by bhupy » Fri, Mar 10, 2023, 6:15 PM UTC

Zetice wrote: post #225

chasd00 wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i'm on board with this. Just a big "ignore" button where i never see the person's content or any interactions with it again would work just fine for me. I think to provide feedback the other way a counter on your view of the number of people that have you on ignore would be good too.

You would spend your days blocking people, and not much else.

You already do this today with email for anything that isn't already swept away by your spam filter, i.e. by clicking "Mark as Spam". Over time, you end up having to do that less because the filter learns your preferences. You can also always go back into your spam folder and teach the system to unlearn something it shouldn't have in case it overcorrected.

It's not perfect, and there's a very real concern that spam filters are becoming increasingly biased, but (to my knowledge) the level of outrage around spam filters is much MUCH lower than that around platform "censorship". It's a stable equilibrium.

Re: Meta is building a decentralized, text-based social network

#272

Post by kwhitefoot » Fri, Mar 10, 2023, 6:15 PM UTC

JohnFen wrote: post #202

mym1990 wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To me the difference is that 1) you pay for hotels and you know exactly what the cost is 2) hotels provide a tangible benefit, mostly being the bed to sleep in. Social media often has this idea that it is “free” and so people don’t think about the massive amounts of time and privacy that is given up as the hours whizz by.

Hotels where you don't pay rent, in exchange for the hotel recording everything you do in the room, in the lobby, and if you aren't careful, putting a GPS tracker on your person.

I doubt that a recording of everything I do in a hotel room would be valuable enough to pay for the room.

Pity really, I'd quite like to do some touring without having to pay!

Re: Meta is building a decentralized, text-based social network

#273

Post by giantrobot » Fri, Mar 10, 2023, 6:16 PM UTC

jazzyjackson wrote: post #40

Fatnino wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So everyone needs to explicitly block cheese pizza for themselves just so a few perverts can share that stuff in the name of "free speech"?

No, everyone needs to explicitly "choose some list of moderators whose decisions you trust, and subscribe to their block lists"

You're describing the exact thing people do when logging onto a Mastodon instance. They're choosing to accept the moderation/federation policies of that instance.

Re: Meta is building a decentralized, text-based social network

#274

Post by themagician » Fri, Mar 10, 2023, 6:18 PM UTC

yalogin wrote: post #133

Why is this obsession with decentralized? I don’t see the benefits of it at all. A central server is better if they have a good moderation plan built in. This whole decentralized idea is to wash their hands off moderation and not take a blame for the hellhole it will become. From a pure functional point of view, how can a decentralized network provide any performance guarantee? What am I missing?

"Why is this obsession with decentralized?"

From a business perspective: absolution from liability. If it's decentralized then you can conveniently say you can't control it and you can't shut it down. All you can do is make money from it.

Re: Meta is building a decentralized, text-based social network

#275

Post by mariusor » Fri, Mar 10, 2023, 6:19 PM UTC

nunobrito wrote: post #245

mariusor wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're conflating the limitations of Mastodon with the limitations of ActivityPub. ActivityPub does not require "email addresses" for identity - that's a Mastodon idiosyncrasy. Identities in ActivityPub are URLs, so as long as you own your domain you can preserve your identity. That's not too different than your identity being a public key, with the benefit of human readability. Mastodon doesn't offer you export/impo…

My previous text just mentions Mastodon limitations. Quite frankly couldn't really care less about ActivityPub or what it could do similar to Nostr (not even doing so today is already a bad thing in itself). You yourself repeat the same castrating limitations "so long as you own your domain". And that's the point. Most people: + don't own domains + don't want to own domains + don't need to own domains for the sake of…

I'm not sure what I said to warrant the attitude from you but probably you can frame your arguments in a better way if you want to continue the discussion.

Re: Meta is building a decentralized, text-based social network

#276

Post by kwhitefoot » Fri, Mar 10, 2023, 6:20 PM UTC

olah_1 wrote: post #248

mym1990 wrote: post #83

What if, and hear me out: we ditch the idea of a better replacement social network and just ditch the concept in general? Let’s go back to not being bombarded by ads every 3rd post, to not getting lost in massive echo chambers, to not doom scrolling for 20-40% of our waking hours, being locked into mega platforms, etc... Is the proposition of “being more connected” really worth the downsides?

I think the ideal social network would just extend the natural social networks of real life. Moxie at Signal was right when he said the real “social network” is just your phone contacts.

No he wasn't. Most of the people I have connected to via social networks do not appear in my phone contacts. And the social networks themselves do not have my phone number.

Re: Meta is building a decentralized, text-based social network

#277

Post by ddren » Fri, Mar 10, 2023, 6:21 PM UTC

drowsspa wrote: post #113

jonathanstrange wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're wrong and not the typical user. Personally, I would never use any social network without strong moderation and banning of toxic users, and I'm that many if not most people share this sentiment. Places without strong moderation turn into hellholes and are generally less interesting. Whether a network is decentralized or not is a completely different, purely technical question. I don't understand why two…

Case in point: we're discussing this on Hacker News, a very well moderated website. Libertarian tech bros love the idea of technical solutions for political problems. What they don't realize is the real service platforms offer is moderation.

I see many comments here every day that would get anyone instantly banned from most of the biggest subreddits. However, I think that most people would agree that this place is a lot less toxic than reddit. Smaller subreddits are somewhat better, but at this point this behavior has become pervasive in site, and users are expected to respond aggressively to any disagreement. As a result, any discussion becomes impossible and most comment sections are filled with users mindlessly agreeing with each other. Moderation is important but the way it is implemented in reddit has only managed to turn the site into an extremely toxic echochamber.

Re: Meta is building a decentralized, text-based social network

#278

Post by chao- » Fri, Mar 10, 2023, 6:35 PM UTC

namaria wrote: post #258

bitxbitxbitcoin wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There’s no free rent at a casino unless you are proven to be a gambler though - or am I mistaken.

Civilization is fast becoming a casino. Housing is increasingly expensive, most offers are some money-for-dopamine deal. Social media is a never ending row of slot machines. We keep betting small chunks of attention that we will have a mythical pay-off (fame, love, glory), and most just waste away pressing the buttons and looking at the colors change for ever.

In what way does something becoming expensive (in this case housing) make it like a casino? And what would be a flip-side for that metaphor ("housing prices are remaining where they are, which is like {{thing}}")?

Not disagreeing you, just unable to follow the connection you are making.

Re: Meta is building a decentralized, text-based social network

#279

Post by hungryforcodes » Fri, Mar 10, 2023, 6:36 PM UTC

idiotsecant wrote: post #199

hungryforcodes wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Connecting people with their peers is most certainly not damaging-- any more than socializing in general. Facebook started off GREAT! I singed up almost as soon as it was available to the general public (remember it was just open to university students at first). At that time my timeline was basically text only and the content came from only my friends. It was like a fun online party -- not unlike online chat systems…

It certainly is quite damaging because that connection isn't an accurate representation of a real-world connection. When you see someone in the real world you see them sneeze, you see them cry, you see their successes and their failures. When you are 'friends' with someone on social media you see a carefully curated window into a reality that doesn't exist. This gives young people unrealistic expectations for themsel…

The online world is the real world now, or at least a large part of it.

Also meeting people in person is often annoying and damaging. I jest but, also not. :p

Re: Meta is building a decentralized, text-based social network

#280

Post by jstarfish » Fri, Mar 10, 2023, 6:41 PM UTC

gruez wrote: post #188

crabbone wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are optional in the same way how postal service is optional. Sure, you may just drive / sail / fly to whoever you want your package delivered... chances are you'd rebel against this seeing how everyone else simply drops their package by the nearest collection point. Social networks today provide service beyond simply catching up with friends and family. They serve as front desks of companies' customer support, t…

Going back to the OP, if people are voluntarily using social networks because they make it easier to catch up with friends and family, why should we "ditch the concept in general"? Should we go back to the days of communicating to each other via letters?

> Should we go back to the days of communicating to each other via letters?

I'd argue so. People put more thought into letters, since producing and sending them involved expense of time and effort. Laziness was its own spam filter.