Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Federated App Problem

plug-world.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 201 posts

Re: The Federated App Problem

#161

Post by cubefox »

sxg wrote: post #41
class4behavior wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The same way people manage to decide whether to buy buns at the bakery on the right rather than the one on the left or donate to the NGO1 rather than NGO2 doing exactly the same, you ought to manage to judge which instance is a better fit or if it even matters in your case. >why would all problematic users congregate on the same server? Isn’t it far more likely that you’ll have to block individual users across numero…

Perhaps Mastodon is just too immature at this stage for the servers to really differentiate themselves from each other. However, as the number of users and posts on Mastodon grows, will any server actually be capable of adequate moderation? Twitter has ~6,000 tweets per second—it's hard to imagine any Mastodon server today being able to handle even a fraction of that content.

It would be interesting to know how many moderators Twitter has. They do have ad income, so they can afford to employ full time staff. Then again, Reddit does well with volunteer moderators.

Re: The Federated App Problem

#162

Post by cubefox »

WJW wrote: post #121
vGPU wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which is exactly what worries me. I don’t want other people deciding who I can read and who I can’t. I don’t want other people deciding what voices should be heard. This just seems like the creation of another echo chamber.

Well, turn the automagic updating of the banlists off then. It's configurable, but it's not the default because most people are not interested in seeing the posts of (as an example) people who upload kiddie porn, nor do they want that on their hard drive in the off chance the FBI comes by with questions.

So the possibility of highly illegal content justifies a block list which perhaps includes mainly blocking unwanted political opinions? That argument sounds familiar.

Re: The Federated App Problem

#163

Post by burnished »

cubefox wrote: post #150
madeofpalk wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the point of federation though. It allows for different standards of moderation to actually exist. If you don't like the way a server moderates, then don't join it (or transfer to another server, which you can mostly do with Mastodon). Hell, run your own mastodon server (or use a "mastodon-as-a-service" service) which is pretty trivial for micro instances. The idea that there is one globally correct way to mo…

I don't get why some people are so anxious to block alleged hate speech and supposed misinformation. Social networking sites already allow users to choose their own community simply by chosing whom they follow. Without federation. Why do we need additional segregation and polarization beyond that?

You're acting like the current methods aren't greeted with the same cries.

To answer your question; because they are demonstrably required. Different subreddits already moderate to different standards - why do you insist that each community needs to fit in as part of the same whole?

Re: The Federated App Problem

#164

Post by Libcat99 »

sxg wrote: post #4

I agree with the premise of the article. I’m a new Mastodon user trying to give the platform an honest shot, but I can’t understand why I would choose any particular server over another. Why choose anything other than the pseudo-default Mastodon.social? If I’m forced to choose another server, is that choice actually meaningful? I feel like I’m randomly picking between Hachyderm and TechHub.io and others. One advantag…

Consider the phone network for a moment.

The phone network is a federated service. You can call an ATT customer from Verizon. You can also call them from Joe's Discount Boxes and VoIP sales.

Now, if you start making spammy calls, ATT might block you as a customer (after warning you first). Same for Verizon. But Joe's Discount Boxes and VoIP sales doesn't, because box sales are down and these VoIP margins are so, so juicy.

Spammy customers flock to Joe, because he allows it. Joe keeps letting customers on, without doing due diligence, without caring if they're legit (beyond a valid looking credit card), and eventually gets blocked by FCC order. (See https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-23-389A1.pdf, for an example).

Now, federation doesn't have an FCC, the various server admins will be filling that role themselves, but there is a reason scummy people will use scummy servers.

Side note: This kind of FCC enforcement is fairly new to the industry, so if you're wondering why you get spam called all the time still, there is some hope this'll change.

Re: The Federated App Problem

#165

Post by pixl97 »

MichaelZuo wrote: post #152
pixl97 wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Discoverability is a double edged sword. You'll find it, but so will every bot and scammer on the planet too. Then moderation will get ever stricter to get rid of the abusers and eventually the place becomes a mess for one reason or another.

Hence a real name requirement, and/or a real money pseudonymous account requirement, seems to be pretty much the future.

Authoritarians are salivating at the idea of real name requirements.

Re: The Federated App Problem

#166

Post by currency »

cubefox wrote: post #150
madeofpalk wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the point of federation though. It allows for different standards of moderation to actually exist. If you don't like the way a server moderates, then don't join it (or transfer to another server, which you can mostly do with Mastodon). Hell, run your own mastodon server (or use a "mastodon-as-a-service" service) which is pretty trivial for micro instances. The idea that there is one globally correct way to mo…

I don't get why some people are so anxious to block alleged hate speech and supposed misinformation. Social networking sites already allow users to choose their own community simply by chosing whom they follow. Without federation. Why do we need additional segregation and polarization beyond that?

I might talk about allegations and suppositions about an individual's behavior until I've seen evidence, but the hate and disinfo groups aren't imaginary.

Groups that promote hate speech and misinformation do so by invading other communities and being disruptive. Brigading and doxxing have been their tools for a long time.

Personally, I've seen that breaking up groups that promote hate speech and misinformation helps the remaining members to enjoy the community in peace.

Re: The Federated App Problem

#167

Post by rakoo »

pixl97 wrote: post #136
badtension wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is discoverability. You don't know where to look for stuff or people. I wanted to check out this whole Lemmy thing and found almost completely dead (no comments) communities linked from their project page. Where do I go? How do I search for something worthwhile? There's no central space to find it, compare communities etc. I was curious but now I am kind of put off.

Discoverability is a double edged sword. You'll find it, but so will every bot and scammer on the planet too. Then moderation will get ever stricter to get rid of the abusers and eventually the place becomes a mess for one reason or another.

I'm sure spam bots and scammers aren't waiting on indexes to appear and do their own, so providing an index can't make them more problematic they already are.

Trolls, bullies and harassers though will have better access to you.

Re: The Federated App Problem

#168

Post by JohnFen »

cubefox wrote: post #162
WJW wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, turn the automagic updating of the banlists off then. It's configurable, but it's not the default because most people are not interested in seeing the posts of (as an example) people who upload kiddie porn, nor do they want that on their hard drive in the off chance the FBI comes by with questions.

So the possibility of highly illegal content justifies a block list which perhaps includes mainly blocking unwanted political opinions? That argument sounds familiar.

I think the point is that the blocklist is optional. If you don't like it, don't use it. Or make your own that is more directly tuned to your tastes.

Re: The Federated App Problem

#169

Post by post-it »

sxg wrote: post #16
7e wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, all problematic users don’t congregate on the same server. Problematic users can pop up anywhere. However, a server could fail to moderate effectively and become a source of misinformation and trolling. That’s the benefit of federation: it ensures a minimum level of moderation quality. Servers that don’t moderate are blocked, which sets up the proper incentives.

Sure, but as the number of users on the federated service grows, how do we not end up in the same place as email today? Does it not become good moderation policy to auto-block all new and small servers (e.g., self-hosted email servers) if you're a big server (e.g., Gmail)? If that happens, wouldn't all users migrate to the big server (e.g., Gmail) and effectively re-establish centralization and undermine federation?

Email isn't fully centralized, and the centralization seems to have plateaued. Fully hosting your own email server is difficult, but there are hundreds of non-Google/Microsoft/Apple hosts. If the Fediverse centralizes to the extent of email, I still prefer that to the current 100% siloization of all social media.

Email is also old and unextendable, whereas the Fediverse has interoperable stacks built on top of it, opening the door to better moderation and web-of-trust tools that help combat spam and decrease the pressure for centralization.

Re: The Federated App Problem

#170

Post by JohnFen »

pixl97 wrote: post #165
MichaelZuo wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hence a real name requirement, and/or a real money pseudonymous account requirement, seems to be pretty much the future.

Authoritarians are salivating at the idea of real name requirements.

Not to mention that such requirements don't actually do what their proponents hope.
Post reply on HN