Skip to main content


Centralisation of communications media is an extremely powerful force.

The typical remediation for centralization is regulated public utilities is breaking up a monopoly into a cartel of 3-5 local monopolies.

Also not great.

We are participating here at a very rare occurrence of decentralisation.

For everyone who thinks this is important for our lives and for the world, it is incumbent on all of us to build structures now that hold this ground as the federation grows.

#cosocialca
I highly recommend the excellent book "The Master Switch" by Tim Wu.

It details the initial decentralization, followed by centralization and monopoly, of various media from telegrams to film, radio, tv, telephones, cable TV, and the Internet.

It's a fascinating read, and well worth your time.
here's an hour lecture of Tim Wu talking about it (not familiar with Tim Wu, nor have I watched this yet) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVZLl4EKQis

I unfortunately read pretty seldom now, being addicted to multi-media and constant stimulus. I can hardly just watch a video anymore, gotta do two things at once.

Evan Prodromou reshared this.

One of the big mistakes people make, over and over again, is relying on technological determinism.

That is, thinking the architecture of the technology will preserve the topology of the network.

Mastodon is Open Source. It's built with open standards.

This is necessary but not sufficient to keep the network decentralized.

We're going to need social and legal structures, plus cultural norms, that counterbalance Metcalfe's law, which pushes the network towards centralization.
I am not sure. Mail for example converged to a handful of big providers and a long tail of smaller ones.
Is not Mastodon heading is this direction?
@ks yes, unless we put in place social and cultural mechanisms to avoid it
@ks
What "social or cultural mechanisms" are you considering?
@bobwyman one is just continuing the great tradition in the fediverse of supporting small instances of 1K, 10K, 100K people.

Second is setting up financial structures that make those feasible long-term without bankrupting the admins.

Individual operators with high hosting bills and legal liability are juicy targets for anyone wanting to roll up instances.
@bobwyman another one is emphasizing the equivalence of one domain with one real world group.

For example, company instances, family instances, local city or neighborhood instances, nonprofit or professional membership instances, all emphasize equivalence of a domain with a group.

We know from email and Web that this cultural norm can help a lot to maintain decentralization.

It's not sufficient in and of itself, but nothing is.
@bobwyman I think you've probably thought about this problem more than I have!

What social or cultural practices might help to keep the federation decentralized?
@denise One thing I think we should do is be more explicit about our view of the individual rights that must be protected.

e.g. I'd like to design decisions that explicitly support Article 19 of the UN Declaration of Rights :

"Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."

See: https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights
Equating domain with group is, as you suggest, useful. However, I think we've done less than we could by not making it easier for individuals to maintain multiple, role or interest-based identities. I should be able to switch easily between identities rooted on company, family, city, or interest, while maintaining a persistent context-free identity.

We've known about this problem since at least the late 1970's when I first started building email systems... Is it too late to fix it now?
@bobwyman - To play devil's advocate, I believe that "the equivalence of one domain with one real world group" is a terrible direction for the Fediverse to move.
1) That would encourage people with a particular worldview only talking to each other.
2) Most of us have multiple interests/advocacies. I believe that only general-purpose instances that moderate SOLELY based on written rules can provide the environment we need. Holding a minority opinion should never be cause for suspension.
Majority rule only works if you're also
considering individual rights,
because you can't have five wolves and one sheep
voting on what to have for dinner.
- Larry Flynt
@ks I think you are exactly right about where this ends up (large, regulated players) in the absence of some counteracting forces - but “social and cultural mechanisms” seems incredibly vague. Is there any precedent that shows communities can self-organize out of network effects rather than fall prey to them?
@ks
@markallerton@ks let me flip it: what non-technical things would you do to keep things decentralized?
@markallerton@ks

I do agree that centralization is coming to the fediverse, but not for any of the reasons that most people on here think. That centralization is coming for the exact same reasons that centralization came to email, and it's a reason that many folks that would like things to stay decentralised keep ignoring.

And that is user safety.

A lot of Mastodon fans keep pretending that Mastodon is inclusive. It's not. But it could be.
@markallerton@ks

As a Black person, simply signing up for a Mastodon account can expose you to vile racist slurs and threats of violence. Most Mastodon users are one popular toot away from discovering that their instance mods are either unwilling or completely unprepared to deal with this.

Because a centralized whitelist was abused in a cynical attack years ago, the fediverse kinda gave up on that idea, and has been very resistant to it ever since.
@markallerton@ks

It's entirely possible for decentralized instances to provide safety, but most don't/won't. I'm super happy with hachyderm.io for example. ♥️👍🏿

But a larger company is going to integrate with the fediverse, and fulfill the most basic user feature request: "As a user of your product, I would like to know that signing up will not expose me to death threats from nazis" 🤷🏿‍♂️

Then more new users are going to flow there.
@markallerton@ks

The best thing to do to "counter" this coming centralization is super easy to do, but from my short time observing here, it won't happen:

1. There should be stricter criteria for an instance being listed on "join Mastodon." Insufficient moderation gets you de-listed. Handle cynical false reports.

2. It should be easier for a new admin to just check a box and opt-in to a whitelisted federation that excludes the worst instances.
@mekkaokereke I agree. I think JM is a great structure for making default policy for the network. Requiring active moderation and use of shared allow/deny lists is a great criterion for entry.

I also dislike a shared allowlist. It shuts down growth at a time when we need to be reaching more people than ever.

There are 12000 Mastodon sites up, according to some estimates. There are 150 sites on the Rapidblock list. I think a blocklist makes more sense here.
@mekkaokereke instances.social is implicitly an allowlist, and 💯 agreed with Mekka that the group running that needs to do a better job at ensuring a minimum set of criteria.

(But also agree that a universal allowlist would be complicated, but maybe worthwhile? Long term, allowing small instances, like "we've seen exactly one user here? Fine." but having alerting for new instances with large numbers of users seems an important shared infrastructure.)
@mekkaokereke I'm following most of this but I don't know what JM is. Thanks for help.
@mekkaokereke Sorry to but in, but why talk about list, in the context of a network.

We dont need more list (white, black, grey, allow, disalow, etc.)

We need tools that do the systemic stuff agaisnt an adversarial network, which in real life is called gossip.

Admin need to be able to set trust level local agaisnt instances, with limited interaction as a default.

We need to share the moderation data with other instances we trust, not share a list
@mekkaokereke I agree with this. I run a tiny instance of only two users? How am I to ensure I get on the "good" list.
@mekkaokereke

Worth mentioning that "allow" vs "block" aren't the only two options. There are "limited" settings, where users from an instance can follow & be followed but don't show up in more public content.
https://docs.joinmastodon.org/admin/moderation/

So it is possible to imagine a set-up with an allow-list of known well-moderated sites, a block-list of known bad actors, & limited setting for new/unknown instances (maybe with new limited settings that work better for cautious discovery of new servers).
@markallerton@mekkaokereke@ks My view is that any account that uses the word #moderation in any context should be automatically required to pay $1 a month to a server admin via #Patreon or PayPal.

This isn’t funded by venture money or ads. So if you expect a commercial level of moderation, then support the cause monetarily.
@Caliban64 Are you aware of the barrage of harassment people are getting?

It's an organized campaign by racist, homophobic, transphobic trolls.

Here's a good thread by @tomcoates . Warning: there's some really graphic content in there.

https://twitter.com/tomcoates/status/1595848852942114816

Can you really imagine saying to someone who'd just been abused at that level, "Hey, you're not allowed to talk about this until you pay $1 to the absentee instance operator who let it happen?"

Come on.
@Caliban64 I've been running my own instance for about a week, and I've had *four* incidents that have made me put down my phone and take a walk. Really loathesome racist, homophobic and transphobic attacks.

And I'm a cis, white, straight, affluent man. Nothing that was said to me was a credible threat to my physical safety. And it still shook me up pretty badly. I can't imagine how it must feel to someone more directly targeted.
@Caliban64
I got the news about setting up Rapidblock, which has kept the incidents at bay for the last 24 hours. But it's not easy to use. It's not even scriptable; you have to manually update the blocklist.

https://rapidblock.org/
@Caliban64

Meanwhile certain folks, usually white folks catering to an escapist following, coo about how cozy and safe it feels here. This is a real disconnect...props to Evan for being on it though. Thank you.
@tomcoates I can imagine saying we all need to invest in this if it is going to work. People have been trained to expect that somebody else’s money will pay for their online safety. That is not going to work here. How long do you think it will be before Mastodon descends into Twitter-esque chaos? A week? A year? I think about a month. The bad actors are arriving now. I pay each of my admins $1 a month. Step up and support the model, or it will die.
@Caliban64@tomcoates I agree with you, Evan — cooperative moderation across instances seems essential to maintaining decentralization. But also, mastodon.cloud (where @tomcoates landed) seems to be run by a Chinese for-profit, have no posted code of conduct, and have almost no block list.

Content warning: transphobia, actual nazis, birdsite

@technoshaman001@Caliban64@tomcoates I'm sorry to hear that. What recourse did you have? What happened next?

Content warning: discrimination

Thanks for this thread !
You're the first to give me enough information to understand what is actually happening (I hadn't stumbled upon @tomcoates 's thread and nobody else that I did read was giving any practical information).

But sugarcoating the truth (that moderation is done by people and that the solution is not to push well-meaning admins to burn out by blaming them for the work they haven't done - nor claimed they would do in an infallible manner) doesn't help.
@markallerton@ks

Personally I care a lot more about user safety than decentralization. I care about decentralization as it pertains to user safety, product innovation, and inclusion. Which is why for the day job, I choose jobs where I can make sure that small companies compete and win against the big company I'm at. This creates a healthier world, and works better for everyone.

But I don't value decentralization for decentralization's sake.
@mekkaokereke@markallerton@ks your argument is basically "I prefer a filtered view of reality, and I want someone else to define it." User safety is ill-defined.

I'm not calling you down for that. Many users want the same. But you should probably acknowledge that not everyone wants the same thing.

Top down moderation is not sustainable if we don't want to end up with Twitter again. We can and should make it easier for users to choose their view of the Fediverse.
@gabrielbauman

You should take a look at some of the actual stuff people are talking about.

Here's a good thread:

https://twitter.com/tomcoates/status/1595848852942114816

I don't think we're talking about matters of taste. This is egregious intentional harassment , designed to terrorize, that's outside the bounds for everyone and illegal in many countries.

If you don't want to use a shared blocklist, don't. Your choice. Let's make it easier for people who don't want to be brigaded by trolls to have a fighting chance.
thanks for the link.

Blocklists are just one type of policy users should have access to. Bad actors will just keep popping up. Whack-a-mole isn't sustainable. We need a standard way to allow end users to subscribe to policies that aren't just "bad guy lists."

"Don't show posts from accounts with fewer than X followers, or that only reply and never post, or that my friends have blocked, or that company X's blocklist blocks..."

Pluggable moderation smarts.
@markallerton@ks

There's increasing evidence that good moderation just doesn't scale well. Having a mod to user ratio of under 1 to 1000 seems ideal. There's all the opportunity for decentralized social to be safer than centralized. And we're squandering it.

By funneling marginalized users to big instances like mastodon.cloud and mastodon.social, letting them experience horrible abuse, and then blocking them for not using CW when they ask for help.
@mekkaokereke@markallerton@ks i have been posting about this on the birdsite re: The List Everyone is Talking About Today.

I think the 20% technical answer needs to give Instance Admins a protocol for sharing moderating, filtering, and discovery policies. Of course, the 80% answer needs to be communities (like hachyderm) to support these measures.

I had not heard of the centralized whitelist/allowlist incident with Mastodon. ActivityPub will need its SpamHaus

https://twitter.com/dvanduzer/status/1596184661427904512
@mekkaokereke@markallerton@ks Bayesian filtering is an incredibly useful tool combined with Human moderation. There is a clear opportunity for Federation Hubs that aggregate and share Bayesian "perspectives" with each other, without re-centralizing, uhh, feudal group identity.
@mekkaokereke if you happen to already be familiar with what blekko was: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blekko

it will be quicker to understand when i say "Mastodon instances are slashtags"

one way to keep the crowbar in the window is if, say, @corentin started scraping a @local-links @ instance feed from Instances that agree they want to archive linked content.

there is quite a lot of useful metadata that could be baked into that ActivityPub stream, based on that community's "default" interests.
@markallerton@ks It's ironic and sad that we're seeing the biggest spikes in fediverse adoption in history precisely because users are fleeing a centralized network that is becoming less safe... and yet we still don't acknowledge that for social networks, safety is the P0 feature.

Yes, the fediverse is safer for some users than centralized social networks, and I'm truly happy for them. But for other users, it is much less safe.
@markallerton@ks

The analogy that several Black users have said, is "Mastodon is the digital equivalent of fleeing 'regular' racism in the deep South, just to experience 'racism doesn't happen here!' racism in Boston." 🙂🙃

Mastodon has more cultural norms around not talking about racist abuse, than around preventing it from happening. I don't know how to convince y'all that this is bad.

So yeah, this creates an opening for centralizers.
@mekkaokereke@markallerton@ks
The best description I've given about how Mastodon works is, States Rights as a Service.
@corvusbrimstone@sinclairinat0r@mekkaokereke@markallerton@ks it's a common thread from American history. Southern states called upon a principle of "states' rights" to justify their resistance to abolition of slavery and universal civil rights.

The analogy with the fediverse is that we have devolved power from central entities to smaller ones with consequent problems of user safety.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States%27_rights?wprov=sfla1
@sinclairinat0r@mekkaokereke@markallerton@ks that was my sarcastic question, answered in all seriousness. Thank you, though, because you're right.
@mekkaokereke@markallerton@ks hate to say it but my *ideal* social platform is a centralized platform with good moderation and safety policies.

Twitter was moving in that direction before it sold out. There were still serious problems but it was the best it had ever been.
Honestly, I just don't care either way about centralization as a first level property, I care about my experience as a user. If centralization improves that, great, let's go with that, if decentralization is better for it, also great.

"Decentralization" by itself is just not a moral value
@sophieschmieg@ks@markallerton@tess@mekkaokereke T H I S

(De)centralization is an implementation strategy/method. The idea that either carries any inherent moral superiority is so bizarre to me, and as I’m seeing, leads people into some rather serious “Animal Farm” ideology.
@bynkii@sophieschmieg@ks@tess@mekkaokereke it’s the same libertarian ethos that drives cryptocurrency - the automatic assumption that it’s bad to have government involved in regulating some activity. We are seeing how well that is working out in the crypto space.
@bynkii@sophieschmieg@tess@ks@mekkaokereke my personal view is that a federated network would be good for preventing a Twitter style disaster where one guy walks in and destroys the place, but there’s nothing wrong with the components of that federation being large, and having some regulation involved - and that Mastodon will probably evolve in that way if it is to survive.
@tess@ks@markallerton@mekkaokereke@sophieschmieg however, the fediverse is also more vulnerable to coordinated bad-faith reporting attacks that also use external social opprobrium to boost demands to defed “bad” instances.
@bynkii fediverse is inherently vulnerable to different classes of attacks (as well as a few of the same classes or attacks) compared to traditional, monolithic social media platforms.

It's important to identify the likely vectors now and have plans against them rather than taking a purely reactionary posture and constantly being one step behind the bad actors.

Remember: always ask yourself "WW4D" - "what would 4chan do?"
@bynkii@tess I love #ww4d 👏 is there anything in the protocol that stops someone spamming activitypub endpoints? Just bulk delivering spam to any username that can be found?
@uc not explicitly. But there are great patterns to borrow from email. Any server can refuse to deliver any activity. Bayesian filtering and shared blocklists can help, too.
@mekkaokereke As an admin, I've found myself wanting the same thing, and the closest we have is going around to other instances and looking at what instances they block/silence.

It's inconvenient, of course. But the much bigger problem is that most of the longer lists are full of "we block this instance because too many people don't put '''politics''' behind CWs"—which is absolutely not a reason we want propagated to widespread blocking.
@siobhan@mekkaokereke have you tried https://rapidblock.org/ ?

It's a shared blocklist and catches a big number of very bad actors.
@mekkaokereke No, I hadn’t come across that! It looks like a great resource; I love that it’s a limited set of tags, and not as open-ended as just looking at others’ block lists. Thank you!!
@mekkaokereke@markallerton@ks I totally agree that Mastodon is not perfect. We are talking about human beings, and as far as I know none of us are perfect. But at least on Mastodon you can contact human beings who can do something about your issue. Try that on Twitter or Facebook. That is the beauty of the Federvere. And compared to the monolithic social media companies, we do work to improve. All they do is try to make more money.
@BertL@markallerton@ks

You aren't listening, you're talking.

You're telling me how Mastodon is better, in response to me saying it's worse (but could become better).

You're presuming that I haven't reported racist abuse on just about every major social media platform there is. I have. And I'm telling you Mastodon's response was by far the worst.

Lots of Black folk are telling you this and you're just not listening.

Why is that?
@mekkaokereke

You're right!

I'm going to pipe down, read more, comment less.

Thanks for the reminder.
@mekkaokereke Lurk and let lurk. A motto, why my #birdverse profile has fewer than 500 posts since 2008.
@mekkaokereke@markallerton@ks don't the blocking features from users side help here? Especially if you can block evil instances?
@escamoteur@mekkaokereke@markallerton@ks yes, but you have to see a harassing message to block it, which can be really traumatic.

If there are 100 people on an instance, and each of them has to block an harasser manually, that's 100 incidents of harm.

If the first harassment incident results in a site-wide block, then 99 of those incidents are prevented. It's still terrible for the first person, but the overall harm is less.
@mekkaokereke@markallerton@ks for me it's hard to understand how a post from some stranger can be so traumatic. I get angry or annoyed by such posts but to get hurt it normally needs to be from someone I respect or like.
(this definitely doesn't cover doxing)
@mekkaokereke@markallerton@ks

Agree but for different reasons.

Centralization is going to come to Mastodon because someone is going to put up a search engine. And that search engine will become a point of centralization.
i think this misses the point. people have put up search engines already, and they have been defederated and decried into oblivion. it just happened again like three days ago.

as @mekkaokereke points out, it’s the user safety issue that’s bleeding by far the worst right now. why? because groups that had some kind of a safe haven on twitter are essentially being forced to migrate away as it becomes a right-wing nightmare. the fediverse has a unique chance to accommodate the needs of those groups.

so now is the time to address user safety, not things that have yet to successfully pose a problem but a thing that is a live, on-fire problem for many, many people joining the fediverse. all hands and all resources on deck IMHO –

i believe @darius had some thoughts about moderation as a service that wouldn’t be out of place here. i hope it’s okay that i link one of his comments here:

https://friend.camp/@darius/109400547664856917
And furthermore, the right wing trolls who prompted Elmo to buy Twitter are not going to allow their audience to leave without a fight.

The NAZI little turds are going to be coming to Mastodon to wreck it, just like they did in Gamergate and the Sick Puppies etc. etc.
sir, with respect, they are already here. they have been here for years. this is a present tense thing, not a future tense thing.
@datn@mekkaokereke@hallam@ks@markallerton anyway, my number one priority for medium to long term planning is federated user safety
@markallerton@ks I agree with @mekkaokereke that JoinMastodon needs a new user wizard to point people to an appropriate instance. (Every person correctly directed to Gab or Kiwifarms is one less problem for Hachyderm.)

And also that a collaborative blacklist is wise (slashdot/kuro5hin rules).

But also: membership organizations/co-ops for corporate structure solve many problems, both for finance and labor.
Much more like "I'm lazy/ignorant to install and use an email client, I can has webmail instead lol?" and Gmail was like "sure, come to me my child".
People were using webmail services despite their horrible problems and shortcomings, but the dream of "The Safe Cloud" is strong, they think it's safer than whatever. Well at least they don't have to care, just use, and maybe feel bad when their account gets banned or deleted.
@markallerton@ks

That would be a village, some villages at least.
I don't think email is a comparative model because it isn't broadcast other than to specific members.

This, whether federated or not, is publishing.
Federations require some formal body and agreement of policy. There's a defacto one, but it comes down to, if you don't like this village, town or city then find a different one. Apart from anything else that doesn't scale.
@markallerton@ks yes. Elinor Ostrom won a Nobel prize in Econ for the analysis https://creativecommons.org/2009/10/12/nobel-prize-in-economics-to-elinor-ostrom-for-her-analysis-of-economic-governance-especially-the-commons/
@markallerton@ks the intentional community movement, the back to the land movement, pretty much all anarchist lead mutual aid collectives, food not bombs, protest movements. all models that show there are ways "self-organize out of network effects" they are just less digital, but there are still models to follow.

related have any of yall read The Dawn of Everything: A New History of Humanity? there is a lot in there that is relevant to this moment in time
I am concerned that "social and cultural mechanisms" inevitably encourage conformity, which conflicts with the diversity enabled by federation.
@ks okay, but saying it’s a cultural/social issue seems to ignore really important issues.

Running even a smallish instance takes real time. On the technical side, monitoring performance, patching, defense, tuning, membership management is real work and the work increases as memebership increases, perhaps faster.

Moderation is real work and pas a certain point, the volunteer part-time model falls over.

The financial issues also only increase.
@ks
unfortunately in germany the process to establish a coop is very bureaucratic and costs aroud 8000€
@igorette well, fuck that.

Is there a system like https://opencollective.com/ for German cooperatives to work in before establishing their own legal coop?
@igorette (we met once at FS marriage in Hamburg :)

It depends what you would name a coop.
E.g. https://iconet-foundation.org is a gUG which is easy and there is the “Stiftung in Gründung”.
there seems to be an european branch, i will have a look, thanks
exactly. reminds me of cryptos. there's a lot of interacting factors involved in new tech innovation. human nature would always seep in for weal or woe. once the fediverse becomes mainstream, im sure corps and govts would strike with instance operators and moderators with all sorts of legal goobledygook and burdensome regulations.
@jrd so, let's do what we can to stop that now
is a good showcase for this right now re #socialmedia and #microblogging.

As you know, decentralization can occur over a progressively proprietary network :)
What legal structures would be necessary/appropriate?
@denise yikes, big question!

One is revising legal burdens on operators, like copyright enforcement or illegal content, so they don't assume that the operator has corporate protection, a big legal team or deep pockets.

Another interim option is providing hosted services to make compliance easier (paging @lucasgonze ).

Lightweight cooperative ownership is also a great way to make "community-run" servers really community run.
@lucasgonze Understood, and a tall order. The legal winds have been blowing toward increasing liability and responsibility for third party activities, and existing protections like Section 230 in the US are being eroded and threatened. Long (but worthwhile) road to educate and convince lawmakers that one size doesn’t fit all.
Decentralization is a technical attribute that does less for us than we might hope. A large provider might build a decentralized, distributed system under unified control -- effectively indistinguishable from a centralized system.

On the other hand, Federation implies diversity of control and policy. A decentralized and a federated system might have identical technical structures however, the federated system would be qualitatively different from its decentralized technical twin.
We should neither rely on technological determinism nor ignore it.

I am concerned that relying on instance level content filtering or blocking by admins shifts control of the scope of visible content from individual readers to intermediaries. But, relying on intermediaries is necessary if individuals have insufficient curation tools.

A system that did more to empower individuals' ability to curate would reduce individuals' need to subordinate themselves to others' value judgments.
@bobwyman Metaphor: we just shook a bottle full of 1/3 oil, 2/3 water vigorously. Right now there are little droplets of oil suspended in the water, but they will start to coalesce immediately. Adding an emulsifier would keep the droplets in suspension.

This hasn't pointed me to a potential solution yet, but I'm thinking about the different ways that emulsifiers work.
In particular, many Mastodon instances are hosted by masto.host. I don't know the workings of it, but isn't it like a big centralized entity in the end?
The mistake of both relying on and blaming technological determinism and not taking responsibility as actors themselves, yes.
I have presented this worry for many people now but haven't got an answer:

One of the largest(?) contributors to Mastodon is the non-profit entity responsible for starting the whole project. What happens if somebody takes over the entity and changes licenses of major parts of Mastodon to include oppressive terms. An example would be to ban certain topics from communication using the technology.

Changing licenses and oppressive terms are not unheard of in the tech sphere, see case React.
I've seen it described as a 9 layer stack where the two new layers are policy and politics.
Not sure what you said but it sounds good.
Right. I feel optimistic at present about running a Mastodon instance, whereas I do not feel this way about running an e-mail server. Yes, SMTP is nominally federated and decentralized, but if the “big instances” block you, you’re out of luck. Thank goodness for DNS MX delegation, but still.
Yes, but/and I also think we have to beware of what I call “topological determinism.” #Decentralized & #distributed architectures don’t necessarily, invariably or even all that frequently drive #progressive political commitments. They have other effects, and those effects may well be desirable, but just as we can’t automate the achievement of justice, we can’t design a #network #topology that in and of itself manifests the revolution.
It literally can't scale in the ways we're used to. This could be a sandbox for testing the available laws, moderation schema, etc.

I doubt it will be, tho.
I agree. It could very well be that some big organisation runs a lot of instances and hence controls all of them. In time they may add features and hence encourage more and more users to join their instances instead of others. They may be able to force changes to even open standards due to their own control over the majority.

Thanks for pointing this out and ask for people to consider this.
Unless, as I believe, Metcalfe's Law is a Fallacy. Networks have a geometry, and geometries have points of chaos, @rythur dubbed the idea Dimension Shock after the behaviour of nanoparticles when they hit specific fractal dimension values.

We haven't rigorously worked this out yet 😅 but we like the notion.
Is the virtuous path for a new platform to be productive more regulation or more learning? Whether a decentralized platform is more controllable would be itself a dangerous fact
First off, I think technological determinism is a good lense. Mobile phones and cars have operated on humanity, have atomised us. But it remains to be demonstrated what decentralised architecture will do.

Is it just a nascent phase of centralisation or something different? Will the network pivot towards fine grained federation arrangements or will federation fade away as instances become very large?
I feel like there’s a missing link about centralization making it easier for new users to join, or something
@Holobrine maybe you could read the referenced books and that might help? I don't know how much more information I can provide to you.
Metcalf's law, eh?

Calves from cattle herded toward that RCT corral?

The name is probably a clue; where the young calf met, they get ripped apart by a herder imposing capitalism like bodies for dollars.

If you want to worship cows, do it respectfully on the right continent.
My favourite quote from that whole book is:

“The industry learned how to secure the enactment of seemingly innocuous and sensible regulations that nonetheless spelled doom for any rival”

Feels like he's talking about Big Tech right now, but it's about AM radio stakeholders trying to keep FM down, 85 years ago.

Evan Prodromou reshared this.

that denotes the book you referred to.

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/8201080-the-master-switch#this :)

#Books #Society #Internet #Web #Monopoly #Media

Evan Prodromou reshared this.

it's necessary reading for anyone interested in federation!
EVAN! We have found each other again :)
Checking Audible now.
The book looks excellent. Have just started.
I'm a big fan of Tim Wu. I haven't read that book yet, but I read "The Curse of Bigness" - short read about #antitrust considerations, implications. This book would be a very timely read.
As an American-born Canadian, I mix -isation and -ization up a lot. Sorry for that!
I'm an American who used to do copy editing for documents intended for Canadian eyes. I totally get where you're coming from.
No worries, as an EU citizen I treat both the same ;)
No worries, as an EU citizen I treat both the same ;)
https://digitalcourage.social/@jensclasen@mastodon.social/109364786876612724
as a non-native #English speaker I mix up everything a lot. Sorry for that (in the name of those about 1–1.5 billion people who're in the same position).

What I mean is... don't worry about it. 🙂
@grin English is a totally ridiculous language. Anyone who learns it after infancy should get all the leeway they need.
@grin
I'm American, but most of what I write is meant for Commonwealth audiences, so I sympathise.
Re: "centralisation bad, mastodon good": More than 10% of mastodon users are on mastodon.social (877807 out of 6690501 total).

nikol reshared this.

@grin useful info! But wait until Tumblr joins, or Google launches a service in the spring.
@grin
just decided to make a mastodon account for shits and giggles, and already posts like this are making it clear that it was a good idea.
I very much recommend reading Mark Nottingham’s perspective on technology centralization https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-nottingham-avoiding-internet-centralization/

grin reshared this.

@hvdsomp to me personally? Or in general?
in general, when interested in matters of centralization/decentralization of technology
monopolies are only bad because of money and hoarded power.

When profit is no longer a thing, monopolies will make the most ecological uses of our resources.
How much of the centralization is due to the hegemonic capitalist system, and how much is due to it being "communications media"?

Because it seems to me that in the absence of capitalist pressures (or with other overriding pressures than the market and profit), you tend to see quite a lot of decentralisation and expansion of communication media, in particular in terms of federated or decentralised structures.

But what do I know.
Yes and what is being decentralized, first and foremost, is mass media as the antecedent of the attention economy online.
Hear, hear! I believe in the #fediverse!
Ideally there would also be semi-automated ways to upgrade a limited-access new server to the allow-list, based on a history of positive interactions (follows, boosts, & conversations) with members-in-good-standing of servers-in-good-standing. With % based targets that are achievable by small instances but not game-able with a couple cute puppy pics.

Which then suggests a semi-automated process to put limits on servers that experience large % growth or negative interactions.
1) They can't know.
2) They'd lose "public" stream completely.
Good thread about decentralization / centralization in the fediverse with @evan and others:

https://prodromou.pub/@evan/109377098578718887

I like @mekkaokereke 's note about safety:

https://hachyderm.io/@mekkaokereke/109404380624512650
#centralization is powerful, but is based on control by one who thinks he/ she knows best. Centralization requires violence to maintain a certain kind of organization.
#decentralization by its inherent nature is peaceful, depends on #cooperation and allows change to emerge and therefore growth.
#emergent
I think the centralization argument misses the real issue which is user autonomy.

First off, look at how centralized 'Decentralized Finance' is in practice. All the blockchain guff is just decentralization theater.

Secondly, the Web was designed to be decentralized. And it still is in certain ways. But Google and Facebook and some other companies have established massively centralized positions.

Network effects are real and there is always pressure to centralize.

What matters to me is having the exit option. Can I switch from Twitter to Facebook without cost? Can I switch from one Mastodon instance to another without cost?

Now obviously, Mastodon as it is today isn't there yet. But that doesn't mean it can't be fixed.

The whole point of Open Source is that you can adapt and extend it. The Web didn't kill Gopher as a competitor, it absorbed it.