The Fediverse is inefficient but that's a good trade-off
1–10 of 219 posts
Re: The Fediverse is inefficient but that's a good trade-off
#2Mastodon will never have the level of censorship or control that a centralized platform like Twitter, Facebook, or TikTok have. I can't wait for it to be the norm but I doubt that it will ever happen due to the lack of censorship.
Re: The Fediverse is inefficient but that's a good trade-off
#3The real problem with Fediverse is we’ve already seen how people will use it ala Facebook and Twitter.
I don’t get to goto work and engineer essentially the same product 2007 engineered.
It’s a rehash of a rehash of an idea that will become another social landfill.
Really looking forward to the technology equivalent of another Star Wars or Batman trilogy!
Re: The Fediverse is inefficient but that's a good trade-off
#4What has happened with Mastodon recently feels like a great thing for the fediverse. Many of these platforms are still working out their implementation kinks, but they aren't babies anymore. Just when I thought ActivityPub might never catch on, a significant number of people have decided to give it a chance.
Makes me want to implement some ActivityPub features on my own site, so I can get in on the fun!
Re: The Fediverse is inefficient but that's a good trade-off
#5Mastodon will never have the level of censorship or control that a centralized platform like Twitter, Facebook, or TikTok have. I can't wait for it to be the norm but I doubt that it will ever happen due to the lack of censorship.
Makes me wonder if you can even build something like this, if decentralized systems must spend more time filtering junk, on a system which makes it easy to send it, it will always be too easy for malevolent actors to takedown.
Unless you can incur a significant cost to these activities, e.g. requiring social capital (burning social capital with e.g. hate/disinformation), or physical (e.g. access requires boxes which cost some small fee and can be blacklisted)...
Perhaps some of mastodon inefficient behavior can be leveraged here?
Re: The Fediverse is inefficient but that's a good trade-off
#6> (...) the fediverse, the network of mastodon servers, (...)
This sentence at the very start already makes no sense. The above snippet makes as much sense as calling Web a network of nginx and Apache servers since nginx and Apache combined serve the majority of all web traffic.
There are services like Pleroma, Friendica, Misskey, Pixelfed, Write.as, PeerTube, and other Activity-Pub-speaking software which are NOT Mastodon or its forks. The author mentions these other pieces of software later, but pulling them them as "some part of mastodon" is at best a misnomer.
And it's been written about countless times already. See https://bofh.social/notice/APTBaDyBOOvNAzaeqO for a relatively fresh list.
Re: The Fediverse is inefficient but that's a good trade-off
#7Does Mastodon need to spend more time per post on moderation than a service like Twitter? As I understand it, people generally report bad posts to the moderator of the instance they came from and expect them to take them down. And if the instance is unresponsive to takedown requests, it gets added to a blacklist that is shared widely across instances (via #fediblock etc). So the end result is you generally have one person either taking down a post or issuing a network-wide ban, just like on Twitter.
Re: The Fediverse is inefficient but that's a good trade-off
#8Does Mastodon need to spend more time per post on moderation than a service like Twitter? As I understand it, people generally report bad posts to the moderator of the instance they came from and expect them to take them down. And if the instance is unresponsive to takedown requests, it gets added to a blacklist that is shared widely across instances (via #fediblock etc). So the end result is you generally have one p…
[deleted]
Re: The Fediverse is inefficient but that's a good trade-off
#9Does Mastodon need to spend more time per post on moderation than a service like Twitter? As I understand it, people generally report bad posts to the moderator of the instance they came from and expect them to take them down. And if the instance is unresponsive to takedown requests, it gets added to a blacklist that is shared widely across instances (via #fediblock etc). So the end result is you generally have one p…
I don’t really understand what point you’re trying to make. The way moderation is handled in your example sure sounds a lot more democratic, or at the very least with some fundamentals allowing it to be democratic, than twitter ever will be.
Re: The Fediverse is inefficient but that's a good trade-off
#10Does Mastodon need to spend more time per post on moderation than a service like Twitter? As I understand it, people generally report bad posts to the moderator of the instance they came from and expect them to take them down. And if the instance is unresponsive to takedown requests, it gets added to a blacklist that is shared widely across instances (via #fediblock etc). So the end result is you generally have one p…
I don't understand the network-wide ban? That makes Mastodon inherently centralised. Who is the person who has the final say which server may be part of the fediverse? Why does a network-ban even need to exist? There is no algorithm that presents your feed with posts from other servers. You only see who you follow. It's like saying some person has the final say which RSS feeds all RSS feed readers should ban from the RSS-verse.