what's sovereignty worth to me, anyway?
Feb. 2nd, 2019 04:38 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
sciatrixSo muccamukk hosted a set of questions for the Fediverse over at her blog today, and impertinence has done a really nice job of answering them from the perspective of social systems, moderation, and how communities attempting to avoid worst-case-scenarios really work.
I think, though, that I'm still uneasy, and I'm fundamentally uneasy because to me what I am hearing echoed from the various Fediverse/p2p/Mastodon schools of How Fandom Should Do Next is that the future of fandom should be decentralized and spread around many small communities, each maintained and monitored by a few moderators. Like a set of fiefdoms, but administered without hereditary rule, with mobile users who can transfer allegiances from one fiefdom to another quickly--at least in theory.
I think I am uneasy because I am concerned about handing out ultimate power--as opposed to social power--to many different people of unpredictable ethics and morality, with limited ability to leave a toxic space without abandoning friends and limited ways of getting in touch with people who follow. I'm going to talk out loud for a minute to see if I can pin that down.
One of the things I like about the structure of Dreamwidth is that the communities that do form here, and around individual users, are like... a series of connected salons, with both personal and public spaces for everyone, such that anything I post to my personal journal is mine and mine alone and anything I post to a community is surrendered to the moderators of that community, who I can know and trust ahead of time without ever necessarily stepping under their authority, just by reading publicly. It is not clear to me that you can do that on these decentralized fediverse systems.
Another thing I like is that the ultimate authority on how a service will be hosted and moderated is not someone who is modding the individual communities, such that relationships breakdowns with a moderator of a particular community has zero impact on my ability to interact with the rest of Dreamwidth. The odds that I will fall into a personal acrimony with![[staff profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user_staff.png)
denise or mark is slim to none; they straight up don't have the personal bandwidth to necessarily notice me as a person, and I feel safer in that anonymity.
Metafilter is the inverse of that, in some ways--it's a service where the site owner is also an active moderator, and where he and the mod team really do publicly interact in places where I might converse with them anywhere, and my ability to speak on the site at all is definitely mediated by my being a member in good standing with those mods--but also, I can see them and observe them and decide whether I trust the judgement of the MeFi mod team beforehand. I trust that even when I disagree with them, they'll still be decent people to me, and I can do that based on long observance.
So why am I uneasy about a fediverse instance while I'm comfortable on Metafilter, which operates (as far as I can tell) like one enormous federated instance? I cut my teeth on forums; why am I balking at this?
...oh.
Oh, oh, oh.
I've watched so many dysfunctional forums, is the thing, with a lot of dysfunctional modding carried out by people who had neither the skill nor the confidence to have any business modding, who didn't know how to manage a community and didn't take community stewardship seriously as its own thing. I've made the decision to leave forums based on moderation and known grimly that unless things were bad enough to take a significant fraction of users with me--and at one point, I was in that situation!--that I was giving up a lot of my ability to get back in touch with people later, including people who I was really fond of, and that my friendships would have to be very strong indeed to survive a platform migration.
I'm thinking of fediverse as like the old forum systems, but without the option to lurk before deciding to trust someone, and with spinning up a new forum also including some outlay of actual hard cash, so that fewer people can try it.
Woof.
No wonder I'm feeling cagey.
muccamukk hosted a set of questions for the Fediverse over at her blog today, and impertinence has done a really nice job of answering them from the perspective of social systems, moderation, and how communities attempting to avoid worst-case-scenarios really work.I think, though, that I'm still uneasy, and I'm fundamentally uneasy because to me what I am hearing echoed from the various Fediverse/p2p/Mastodon schools of How Fandom Should Do Next is that the future of fandom should be decentralized and spread around many small communities, each maintained and monitored by a few moderators. Like a set of fiefdoms, but administered without hereditary rule, with mobile users who can transfer allegiances from one fiefdom to another quickly--at least in theory.
I think I am uneasy because I am concerned about handing out ultimate power--as opposed to social power--to many different people of unpredictable ethics and morality, with limited ability to leave a toxic space without abandoning friends and limited ways of getting in touch with people who follow. I'm going to talk out loud for a minute to see if I can pin that down.
One of the things I like about the structure of Dreamwidth is that the communities that do form here, and around individual users, are like... a series of connected salons, with both personal and public spaces for everyone, such that anything I post to my personal journal is mine and mine alone and anything I post to a community is surrendered to the moderators of that community, who I can know and trust ahead of time without ever necessarily stepping under their authority, just by reading publicly. It is not clear to me that you can do that on these decentralized fediverse systems.
Another thing I like is that the ultimate authority on how a service will be hosted and moderated is not someone who is modding the individual communities, such that relationships breakdowns with a moderator of a particular community has zero impact on my ability to interact with the rest of Dreamwidth. The odds that I will fall into a personal acrimony with
denise or mark is slim to none; they straight up don't have the personal bandwidth to necessarily notice me as a person, and I feel safer in that anonymity. Metafilter is the inverse of that, in some ways--it's a service where the site owner is also an active moderator, and where he and the mod team really do publicly interact in places where I might converse with them anywhere, and my ability to speak on the site at all is definitely mediated by my being a member in good standing with those mods--but also, I can see them and observe them and decide whether I trust the judgement of the MeFi mod team beforehand. I trust that even when I disagree with them, they'll still be decent people to me, and I can do that based on long observance.
So why am I uneasy about a fediverse instance while I'm comfortable on Metafilter, which operates (as far as I can tell) like one enormous federated instance? I cut my teeth on forums; why am I balking at this?
...oh.
Oh, oh, oh.
I've watched so many dysfunctional forums, is the thing, with a lot of dysfunctional modding carried out by people who had neither the skill nor the confidence to have any business modding, who didn't know how to manage a community and didn't take community stewardship seriously as its own thing. I've made the decision to leave forums based on moderation and known grimly that unless things were bad enough to take a significant fraction of users with me--and at one point, I was in that situation!--that I was giving up a lot of my ability to get back in touch with people later, including people who I was really fond of, and that my friendships would have to be very strong indeed to survive a platform migration.
I'm thinking of fediverse as like the old forum systems, but without the option to lurk before deciding to trust someone, and with spinning up a new forum also including some outlay of actual hard cash, so that fewer people can try it.
Woof.
No wonder I'm feeling cagey.
no subject
Date: 2019-02-06 07:02 pm (UTC)When DW was still in closed beta, there were fairly firm plans to make it so you could just plain read you LJ friends list, including locked posts and comments, from DW (IIRC it's basically just an RSS feed, so it should've been possible.) But it stalled out on a) technical issues (which Fediverse has hopefully solved, at least until the backwards compatibility issues start adding up), b) security/authentication issues around being able to read locked content (which I think Fediverse has solved? Although I wonder how that works in terms of servers blocking each other, if they've previously accessed each others' locked content), c) issues around the fact that DW was dependent on LJ choosing to let them keep doing it (still an issue) and d) social issues around people freaking out about control of their content (always an issue).
So IDK.
I've been wondering how comment-split works on fediverse sites, in terms of which server controls which content - if you have a conversation happening across two different servers and they block each other, what happens to the different parts of the conversation? I don't think I understand the blocking mechanics well enough to ask the question right, though.
no subject
Date: 2019-02-06 07:16 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2019-02-06 07:21 pm (UTC)There's some further discussion of details in comments, but an outline in the post itself.
no subject
Date: 2019-02-06 07:29 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2019-02-06 07:32 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2019-02-06 07:49 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2019-02-07 12:07 am (UTC)This is where it started getting concerning to me. As I looked into how stuff like deleting worked (on Mastodon, I'm not sure about Hubzilla or other options, but I assume it's similar), what happens is your server that you're on sends a request out to all the other federation instances saying "hey you should delete this". If the other servers are compliant, they will. If they're non-compliant, who knows? They could refuse to delete it and your content is now on that other server until they decide to get rid of it. Probably if a non-compliant server like that was found, they'd get blacklisted to prevent future problems, but there isn't really a way to prevent it from happening in the first place.
Compliance aside, it's not instantaneous, so that's kinda weird anyway. Even if the server is compliant to my request to delete a post and does take it down, there might be a delay as it receives the request and processes it.
So in terms of blocking, it's possible you'd have an intermediate state where you could still see posts that are technically blocked or something. (I just tried this myself with accounts on different instances and yeah, it won't immediately remove the locked post from view when the account is blocked, even though it does immediately show up when I post it.)
Tangentially, I don't love that Mastodon decided on a more simple algorithm to decide permissions to view 'locked' posts, especially since it's based on who follows you and not who you're following. It makes you be strangely picky about who is allowed to follow even your public posts if you ever make personal posts under 'lock'.