JustinHanagan

Yeah, I think it's important to keep in mind that the Fediverse doesn't solve any of the problems that come up when a bunch of people talk about stuff they're passionate about. The problems Federation solves is the incentivizing and spotlighting of the sorts of toxic behavior we see on corporate social media.

If a Fediverse instance grew so big that it couldn't moderate itself and had a lot of spam/Nazis, presumably other instances would just defederate, yeah? Unless an instance is ad-supported, what's the incentive to grow beyond one's ability to stay under control?

I fear if these federated systems do grow popular enough

If an instance did grow "too big to moderate", it would surely be defederated from, yeah? I'm struggling to think of a situation where responsible admins from well-moderated instances would willingly subject their users to spammers from an instance (no matter how big) that can't control itself.

The key word here is "large". From the article:

"[Fediverse] instances don’t generally have any unwanted guests because there’s zero incentive to grow beyond an ability to self-moderate. If an instance were to become known for hosting Nazis —either via malice or an incompetent owner— other more responsible instances would simply de-federate (cut themselves off) from the Nazi instance until they got their shit together. Problem solved, no 'trust and safety' required"

You're not incorrect, but I think the thing that differentiates this era of social media from the "before times" (I was there too) is that it's significantly easier for non-techies to join. The internet nowadays has significantly more diversity of perspectives than back then. Those differences are exploited and exaggerated by social media companies to generate engagement. It seems to m that the fediverse model allows for diversity and sanity (or at least not algorithmically-encouraged _in_sanity).

Thanks for reading and the comment!

I personally wouldn't judge any Yankees fan living in Boston who chooses to remain closeted about their allegiances and only discusses sports online.

Absolutely. The essay does actually address that towards the end:

There’s no shame in turning to the internet for supplementing socialization when doing it “better” isn’t feasible. It’s easy to imagine situations where someone might not have access to a community that keeps them sane. A gay teenager stuck in rural Alabama. A woman born into a controlled religious society. A New York sports fan in Boston. Some days in life, the best we can hope for is making it until tomorrow in one piece.

Now you're catching on

The example you mention is actually in the essay itself. But yes, it would be nice if the technology companies could work on a way to automate the stuff we don't enjoy doing instead of the stuff that brings meaning into our lives.

Absolutely. And to be fair, "a chance at fame and attention" is the sales pitch from the commercial platforms. They don't want users having "meaningful conversation". There's a great essay/rant from Cat Valente called "Stop Talking to Each Other and Start Buying Things".