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

The Fediverse is inefficient but that's a good trade-off

berk.es

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 219 posts

Re: The Fediverse is inefficient but that's a good trade-off

#81

Post by guerrilla »

ilyt wrote: post #59
nyanpasu64 wrote: post #50

I'm convinced decentralization is viable for local applications and services like offline document editors and Syncthing, somewhat so for geographically dispersed but closed systems like 1:1 DMs and group chats/video calls (Tailscale sharing might work for static sets of people like friend groups and polycules), but I'm not sure the moderation and inter-server conflicts are workable for publicly visible posts where y…

I'm almost sure they are not. Moderator of some server deciding that their users do not deserve to communicate with someone from some other server is just terrible model from every perspective. It should be always up to user to decide who they want to communicate with. I want to decide to ban user, or ban topic/tag, or even ban server, not have decision deferred to whoever is running the server, that's no better than…

> It should be always up to user to decide who they want to communicate with

But it is, because the accounts are portable, so they can just move to another instance... it's an actually free market. In the end, you can always self-host if you literally can't agree with a single admin out there.

Re: The Fediverse is inefficient but that's a good trade-off

#82

Post by bhoops »

peterweyand wrote: post #16

I've seen more and more advertisements for Mastadon on HN, probably because of the whole Twitter debacle. Does anyone use the service? I mean, enough people so that the average person would know what it is? From my experience with Mastadon it took me a while to even learn how the service was used, and all I remember was thinking "wow that's too complicated to use or get Joe Average User to sign up for". Without ease…

The concept of federation is definitely complicated for most people. Even I dont completely understand the intricacies despite running a mastodon instance myself (link in profile).

However, you can have large general purpose instances which do not have to depend on federation to deliver the value of a network like twitter. Additionally, mastodon itself has grown by leaps and bounds in making the UX easier for the average user familiar to twitter/facebook.

I think its only a question of time before you have large general purpose mastodon instances where users dont have to grapple with federation and the UX becomes familiar for the layman. But at the same time there is space for smaller community focussed instances if someone wants to take their tribe with them.

Re: The Fediverse is inefficient but that's a good trade-off

#83

Post by yunohn »

ekidd wrote: post #80
ilyt wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm almost sure they are not. Moderator of some server deciding that their users do not deserve to communicate with someone from some other server is just terrible model from every perspective. It should be always up to user to decide who they want to communicate with. I want to decide to ban user, or ban topic/tag, or even ban server, not have decision deferred to whoever is running the server, that's no better than…

> It should be always up to user to decide who they want to communicate with. I want to decide to ban user, or ban topic/tag, or even ban server, not have decision deferred to whoever is running the server, that's no better than twatter." You can pay someone to host a server for you, starting at $4/month. (Well, MastoHost is a little behind on signups this week, but they'll catch up.) If you do this, then you'll have…

> If you do this, then you'll have total control over your moderation policy.

The solution to fragmented servers is not another self hosted disconnected server?

Re: The Fediverse is inefficient but that's a good trade-off

#84

Post by guerrilla »

kmlx wrote: post #54
ImaCake wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems a bit dubious to trust twitter with my data anyway? Mastodon at least is not trying to shove politics and celebrities down my throat.

well, at least twitter is a well established, extremely visible corp. for a mastodon instance the list of questions is long and start with: who’s your hosting provider.

> well, at least twitter is a well established, extremely visible corp

Oh yeah, that worked out great with the planet-destroying overlords that are the oil companies. No, this is a terrible heuristic.

Re: The Fediverse is inefficient but that's a good trade-off

#85

Post by guerrilla »

molly0 wrote: post #26

I like Mastodon because it reminds me of an earlier and more interesting web. The same people I follow on Twitter I follow on Mastodon and I feel they are being more honest on Mastodon. This might not be true.

Yes, I'm getting that nostalgia kick and the interactions I was seeking. Getting any of that was an very uphill battle on Twitter.

Re: The Fediverse is inefficient but that's a good trade-off

#86

Post by aghostincarrot »

ekidd wrote: post #80
ilyt wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm almost sure they are not. Moderator of some server deciding that their users do not deserve to communicate with someone from some other server is just terrible model from every perspective. It should be always up to user to decide who they want to communicate with. I want to decide to ban user, or ban topic/tag, or even ban server, not have decision deferred to whoever is running the server, that's no better than…

> It should be always up to user to decide who they want to communicate with. I want to decide to ban user, or ban topic/tag, or even ban server, not have decision deferred to whoever is running the server, that's no better than twatter." You can pay someone to host a server for you, starting at $4/month. (Well, MastoHost is a little behind on signups this week, but they'll catch up.) If you do this, then you'll have…

>If you do this, then you'll have total control over your moderation policy.

My impression was that many apply transitive banning? So that if I peer with a “bad” server A then good server B will block me even though my personal posts may be fine.

Re: The Fediverse is inefficient but that's a good trade-off

#88

Post by guerrilla »

xg15 wrote: post #23
phoe-krk wrote: post #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 Ma…

That's true of course, but seems a bit like "actually, it's GNU/Linux" to me. Mastodon currently is the "flagship" application of the Fediverse, especially as far as the current influx of new users is concerned. At least I think we can hope that people will start to discover all the other things that the Fediverse contains ince they are there and start to use it. Also, not sure if I'm correct, but from what I've read…

No, it's nothing like that. We're going to need PeerTube when YouTube reaches the bottom of its spiral of doom and we'll need Matrix when Signal eats shit as well (maybe sooner than we think.) That there is more than Mastodon to the Fediverse matters.

Re: The Fediverse is inefficient but that's a good trade-off

#89

Post by supermatt »

davisoneee wrote: post #17
seydor wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it gets added to a blacklist unless there is an election about who gets added to the list it s not even democratic. And the freedom of speech is generally protected, not subject to the whims of democracy

If it's an instance level ban, then you can vote with your feet by migrating to a new instance. You are not electing who goes on the list, but you are electing to follow certain lists implicitly by which instance you join. With mastodon/fediverse, you have a choice of numerous different 'twitters', rather than being stuck with the global twitter decision.

If you migrate to another server, don’t you lose all your followers, who will still be following @you@oldserver ?

Re: The Fediverse is inefficient but that's a good trade-off

#90

Post by seydor »

homarp wrote: post #66
seydor wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it gets added to a blacklist unless there is an election about who gets added to the list it s not even democratic. And the freedom of speech is generally protected, not subject to the whims of democracy

except a Mastodon instance is a private property... so no freedom of speech protection there https://www.freedomforuminstitute.org/about/faq/do-individua...

There is also no legal requirement for democracy. We re talking about the principle
Post reply on HN