Live data from Hacker News

Can we get more decentralised than the Fediverse?

gist.github.com

1–10 of 146 posts

Re: Can we get more decentralised than the Fediverse?

#3
Pull not being a good model of two way communications is going to be the major blocker here in my opinion. It's going to mean that people are only going to see comments and reactions on their posts or comments from people they already subscribe to, because their RSS reader would have no possible way of knowing if anyone outside of that list commented, since you can't get notified of content sources you don't already know about, only poll ones you already know. That's already bad enough (one of the big negative things people with large followings on the fediverse talk about is how they can't see what people are saying in the replies to their posts a lot of the time if the servers those people are on are blocked by their server, which means hate and harassment and one sided conversations can fester, and often many commenters can't even see each others' comments, leading to people saying the same things over and over exhaustingly). This also means that people who don't have any followers will literally be essentially muted by default: no one will see their comments or interactions, because no one polls their feed yet, which means that it's basically pointless for them to interact at all, which sounds dispiriting and would probably lead to no one wanting to use this type of social media — moreover, it also creates a catch-22 problem, because a major way to get followers in the first place is to directly interact with other people and bigger blog posts, to make people aware of you and maybe get some of them interested in hearing more of what you have to say, yet in this model, you can't really interact until you have a following already, so your main means of getting a following is gated behind needing a following to work!

Re: Can we get more decentralised than the Fediverse?

#4

Pull not being a good model of two way communications is going to be the major blocker here in my opinion. It's going to mean that people are only going to see comments and reactions on their posts or comments from people they already subscribe to, because their RSS reader would have no possible way of knowing if anyone outside of that list commented, since you can't get notified of content sources you don't already…

Yes it is a big hurdle. However, I think content discovery is generally a big part of any content platform, way broader than discovering "who have reacted to my content". Now if you want to solve the problem of content discovery in a broader sense, then you have already fixed this particular shortcoming of pull-model as well. If a service that can inform you about new posts with a particular hashtag, it most probably can also tell you about reactions to a particular post.

And yes, I do realise that such services will tend to not be really decentralised (similar to the relationship of websites and search engines). But that means the downside is not that you don't get such discovery, but that you'll be reliant on more centralised services for such discovery, whereas in the fediverse you would be less reliant on such services for finding out who has commented on your post (though it will, as you've mentioned still not be enough).

Re: Can we get more decentralised than the Fediverse?

#5
I agree that pull is the best model for posts. For comments I still think the best model is to push them to the post author, and let the post author moderate. This way people who can behave civilly can get an initial audience by writing comments, and having a link to their blog in the profile, with no intermediaries involved. If someone doesn't like the moderation, they're always free to write a comment-as-post, where they can write anything they want but have to take care of distribution themselves.

Re: Can we get more decentralised than the Fediverse?

#6

I agree that pull is the best model for posts. For comments I still think the best model is to push them to the post author, and let the post author moderate. This way people who can behave civilly can get an initial audience by writing comments, and having a link to their blog in the profile, with no intermediaries involved. If someone doesn't like the moderation, they're always free to write a comment-as-post, wher…

What if someone posts a dangerous lie? The post author is going to delete any comments that expose the lie. How would comments-as-posts be sufficiently linked to the original post so the lie can properly be exposed to as much of the audience as possible?

Re: Can we get more decentralised than the Fediverse?

#7

I agree that pull is the best model for posts. For comments I still think the best model is to push them to the post author, and let the post author moderate. This way people who can behave civilly can get an initial audience by writing comments, and having a link to their blog in the profile, with no intermediaries involved. If someone doesn't like the moderation, they're always free to write a comment-as-post, wher…

the thing is, with no intermediaries involved, more specifically, without any proper "search engines" (or "aggregators") involved, the network will suffer greatly from a content discovery problem regardless (as the fediverse currently is, IMO).

with presence of such services, the problem of comments (and reactions in general) can be solved too. if a poster is ok with engaging with potentially hostile content, then they can get reactions to their posts from aggregators that aren't heavy handed on moderation. if they don't want to bother with such interactions, then they can choose safer aggregators. if they want, they can only pull reactions from feeds they are already subscribed to, similar to private posts on twitter.

Re: Can we get more decentralised than the Fediverse?

#10
post #8

Yes, the answer is Nostr

I'm a recent convert to Nostr.

Four things I love about it:

- It's "just" JSON and WebSockets. From a developer's perspective, it's incredibly easy to get started and build interesting things with it. (Like the early days of Twitter.) Which leads to...

- Nostr culture is tolerant of bots and other automated workflows. (Unlike current management of Twitter)

- Nostr culture is tolerant of search engines. (Unlike fediverse, or at least the Mastodon part, though I appreciate the reasons for that distinction.)

- Built-in micropayment infrastructure with "zaps" and Lightning Network integration enables a ton of interesting new startup idea possibilities.

One thing I don't like about Nostr, the social network. (Not Nostr, the protocol. Those two things are very easily conflated right now):

- Too many Bitcoin bros. (Although personally I don't mind Bitcoin, a thriving platform should have more than one thing to talk about.)

Post reply on HN