Mastodon makes the Internet feel like home again(theoutline.com)
theoutline.com
Mastodon makes the Internet feel like home again
https://theoutline.com/post/2689/mastodon-makes-the-internet-feel-like-home-again
126 comments
What made the internet feel like home is that you _had_ a home - it was called home page.
Ultimately the only thing that can make the internet feel home again is if you have your own little corner and that little corner can play nice with the other corners.
The really important tech is either webmentions, activitystreams, Linked Data Notifications, and all that are similar, protocoll-based tech. Mastodon can be one of these, but it's not the only one.
Ultimately the only thing that can make the internet feel home again is if you have your own little corner and that little corner can play nice with the other corners.
The really important tech is either webmentions, activitystreams, Linked Data Notifications, and all that are similar, protocoll-based tech. Mastodon can be one of these, but it's not the only one.
I have my main Mastodon account hosted on a domain I control. Mastodon is based on OStatus/GNUStatus, with bits of ActivityPub/PubSubHubBub/WebSub, so it is "protocol-based tech". For the most part Mastodon is "just" a friendly brand name over some "protocol-based tech".
Making the internet feel like home again would involve burning down Facebook and reanimating the corpse of NNTP.
Why yes, I do feel old and cranky today.
Why yes, I do feel old and cranky today.
A good way to revive NNTP would be to gateway a web forum to NNTP, such that posts on the Usenet server become posts on the web forum and vice-versa. The web forum would have its own killfile, like any normal user, which would ban Usenet posters from the web forum, and, of course, individual users would have killfiles as well.
Spam might be the insurmountable problem here, but I think it's at least worth an experiment.
Spam might be the insurmountable problem here, but I think it's at least worth an experiment.
There's a little chatter about NNTP in kruhft's thread at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15980683 in which I get cranky about NNTP despite not being particularly old, you may appreciate some of that.
Finally, someone who remembers NNTP!
NNTP was federated, decentralized, asynchronous, with hierarchical groups and threaded conversations.
Decades ahead, in terms of protocol design, of mailing lists, twitter and stuff like Slack.
Please tell me there's hope for a new protocol with the same feature set.
Decades ahead, in terms of protocol design, of mailing lists, twitter and stuff like Slack.
Please tell me there's hope for a new protocol with the same feature set.
I was just about to write almost exactly this!
I miss Usenet, I really do... I know it's still around, but it's basically dead.
Google aimed at killing it when they embraced and extinguished Dejanews, then they removed the discussion filter option from their search page, which to me speaks for itself about their nefarious intentions. Then Facebook and Twitter success and ISPS shutting down their servers were the last nails in the coffin.
I still use it and am very active on mewsgroups, but traffic today is a fraction of a fraction of what it was in the late 90s. NNTP is a wonderful way to communicate, but it's decentralized and ad free, corporations cannot make a profit out of it, so it must be killed.
I still use it and am very active on mewsgroups, but traffic today is a fraction of a fraction of what it was in the late 90s. NNTP is a wonderful way to communicate, but it's decentralized and ad free, corporations cannot make a profit out of it, so it must be killed.
NNTP is not dead at all. However, finding data on how to run my own NNTP instance is close to nonexistent. I'd be very glad if someone could point me to some docs.
Here's a quickstart:
https://serverfault.com/questions/218747/how-to-setup-a-nntp...
http://aplawrence.com/Unixart/newsserver.html
Edit: removed list of dead links. Added article.
https://serverfault.com/questions/218747/how-to-setup-a-nntp...
http://aplawrence.com/Unixart/newsserver.html
Edit: removed list of dead links. Added article.
You might like it on Mastodon, then. I could point you to some folks who are hard at work on reanimating gopher on from-scratch computers. :-)
I don't mean to downplay the achievements of Mastodon in any way, but what the author is describing in the example of Mellified.Men sounds like a glorified forum. (Yes, I know it's more than that due to federation.)
Every few years the "group discussion / chat" concept gets reinvented on the internet, and that's all fine and dandy, but I still think there is immense value in having a centralized identity on a service that everyone is using. The problems of Facebook and Twitter have less to do with the fact that they are centralized and more to due with the fact they are funded by ad revenue and the constant pressure to impress the public stock market.
We need a centralized service driven by micropayments from the users themselves, with little to no advertising. App.net was a step in the right direction, and its downfall was more a result of missteps in execution rather than a problem with the core idea.
I fear that might never happen largely due to the inherent structural problems of VC funding. It costs a ton of money to run and scale a social network, and most VCs will be looking to recoup their investment using the traditional means of web-scale revenue (advertising). So what's the solution? My personal hope is something based on blockchain cryptocurrencies. But we'll see if anything takes off in that vein or if the evil empire of Facebook just continues to win the day.
Every few years the "group discussion / chat" concept gets reinvented on the internet, and that's all fine and dandy, but I still think there is immense value in having a centralized identity on a service that everyone is using. The problems of Facebook and Twitter have less to do with the fact that they are centralized and more to due with the fact they are funded by ad revenue and the constant pressure to impress the public stock market.
We need a centralized service driven by micropayments from the users themselves, with little to no advertising. App.net was a step in the right direction, and its downfall was more a result of missteps in execution rather than a problem with the core idea.
I fear that might never happen largely due to the inherent structural problems of VC funding. It costs a ton of money to run and scale a social network, and most VCs will be looking to recoup their investment using the traditional means of web-scale revenue (advertising). So what's the solution? My personal hope is something based on blockchain cryptocurrencies. But we'll see if anything takes off in that vein or if the evil empire of Facebook just continues to win the day.
>I still think there is immense value in having a centralized identity on a service that everyone is using
Would unique names in a federation everyone is using suffice for you?
(i.e. @[email protected] is unique in the whole fediverse)
the whole federation of mastodon instances
Would unique names in a federation everyone is using suffice for you?
(i.e. @[email protected] is unique in the whole fediverse)
the whole federation of mastodon instances
(my karma will likely not survive this) the title should probably read "Mastadon makes the Internet feel like an safe echo chamber again." I get that it's nice to escape the things you don't like to see or read, but the article drops hints throughout to let us know that's what the author is actually discussing. I get it, but the internet has never been devoid of things you don't want to see, and walling one's self off is no better an idea than only socializing with people who view the world exactly the same as yourself.
I don't think this is really about differences of opinion, but rather the social aesthetics of the kind of space you're building. A laid-back little pub is a different kind of space than Central Park, which is a different kind of space than your living room. If some jerk barged into that bar and started shouting offensive slogans or trying to start a fight, I'd fully expect them to be kicked out (perhaps literally). Even considering less blatantly offensive conduct, I don't think every place on the internet needs to be open to every drive-by "devil's advocate" or concern troll who thinks they're being so goddamn clever by clumsily trying to bait the regulars into making a bad argument.
You make a great point with your bar / park comparison. When I was younger I yearned for the wildest, loudest, most packed bars and places to party and drink but now that I'm older I prefer a quieter pub with enough seats for everyone I'm hanging out with to relax, have some drinks, and take a load off.
I don't think it's the worst thing in the world to want a more laid back approach to social media or any sort of community / activity on the web (or anywhere in life for that matter).
I think I'm able to make this comparison because at times Reddit and Facebook and especially Twitter feel like the bars did when I was 18-22 and there were so many underage kids going wild, having a blast, but not really caring about much beyond that -- and there is definitely a time and place for that on the internet for me as well, too!
I don't think it's the worst thing in the world to want a more laid back approach to social media or any sort of community / activity on the web (or anywhere in life for that matter).
I think I'm able to make this comparison because at times Reddit and Facebook and especially Twitter feel like the bars did when I was 18-22 and there were so many underage kids going wild, having a blast, but not really caring about much beyond that -- and there is definitely a time and place for that on the internet for me as well, too!
As an instance admin, I see my server as pretty much exactly my living room: https://blog.freeradical.zone/welcome-to-my-living-room/
I'll tolerate (and welcome!) differences of opinion, but if someone starts harassing my other guests or driving them off, I'll cheerfully kick them out.
I'll tolerate (and welcome!) differences of opinion, but if someone starts harassing my other guests or driving them off, I'll cheerfully kick them out.
Ultimately, it's a matter of control.
On twitter, you're still stuck in a bubble -- only, one created by ranking based on projected interaction. (Functionally, this means an angry bubble: you see only things Twitter thinks will drag you into a flamewar.)
On the fediverse, you set your own filters and pick your own followers, see things in unadulterated reverse-chronological order, and nobody's pushing promoted posts on you.
(Ultimately, this comes down to having a non-profit-oriented, non-centralized system, favoring multiple independent identities. And, it's a throwback to the pre-eternal-september era of usenet, where you went online to have reasonable discussions and added people who annoyed you to your killfile.)
On twitter, you're still stuck in a bubble -- only, one created by ranking based on projected interaction. (Functionally, this means an angry bubble: you see only things Twitter thinks will drag you into a flamewar.)
On the fediverse, you set your own filters and pick your own followers, see things in unadulterated reverse-chronological order, and nobody's pushing promoted posts on you.
(Ultimately, this comes down to having a non-profit-oriented, non-centralized system, favoring multiple independent identities. And, it's a throwback to the pre-eternal-september era of usenet, where you went online to have reasonable discussions and added people who annoyed you to your killfile.)
Hell, on my instance you can see things in unadulterated CHRONOLOGICAL order. It’s great. Load the site and you get a modest chunk of recent toots from the people you follow, with the oldest at top - usually no more than an hour. Scroll down and you’ll see your friends having conversations, maybe the occasional multi-toot from one friend, all in normal reading order.
It took about a day to get used to and I am now amazed that anyone thinks it should work any other way. Whenever I try to read my Twitter timeline I’m amazed how much mental effort I was continually spending to read backwards conversations.
It took about a day to get used to and I am now amazed that anyone thinks it should work any other way. Whenever I try to read my Twitter timeline I’m amazed how much mental effort I was continually spending to read backwards conversations.
I get the newest at the top and have to scroll down to see what I've missed. A client that acts like my Twitter clients do and saves my place, allowing me to scroll up from there to see everything I've missed, would be excellent. Can't seem to find one, though.
Mastalab (Android) will do this. Twidere will, too, but its Mastodon support is second-class.
Cool, I've been looking for this as well.
> unadulterated reverse-chronological order
This is a wonderful phrase. It's hilarious and strange what we've come to value in a feed. What else might we now be taking for granted that ad companies are going to fuck up?
This is a wonderful phrase. It's hilarious and strange what we've come to value in a feed. What else might we now be taking for granted that ad companies are going to fuck up?
I'd say "your notification tray", but it seems like the majority has already lost that one.
There's nothing about reverse chronological order that makes it innately better for listing things, or better or worse for advertisers. Even for a feed, there are good arguments for and against different orderings depending on both the data and who you are. As one obvious example, most people prefer forum software with threaded views of discussions to strictly chronological listings of messages.
Probably most relevant in Twitter's case is that if your feed contains more stuff than you can get to quickly, any curation is probably more useful than simply missing the things that came first or the things that came last. This is why, for example, people who receive a large volume of email often like prioritization or rule-based organization features in their email clients. Like I said, this might not be your situation and a reverse chronological feed might be better for you, but it's not like it's inherently superior. Like so many design choices, it's a trade-off.
And of course you can show ads with a feed no matter what order the feed is in.
Probably most relevant in Twitter's case is that if your feed contains more stuff than you can get to quickly, any curation is probably more useful than simply missing the things that came first or the things that came last. This is why, for example, people who receive a large volume of email often like prioritization or rule-based organization features in their email clients. Like I said, this might not be your situation and a reverse chronological feed might be better for you, but it's not like it's inherently superior. Like so many design choices, it's a trade-off.
And of course you can show ads with a feed no matter what order the feed is in.
Yeah, you're right. Like @enkiv2 said, it's really about control. If the user controls ordering and filtering, any old order is fine. I think the reason plain old reverse-chronological seems notable is because most people who use feeds are using Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Reddit and/or Snapchat, where the user isn't in control.
Even if these services offered sorting options (most don't, I think), the default is an optimization for time-on-site. Which is to say, when most people's experience of feeds is being manipulated by them, boring old reverse chronological sticks out.
Even if these services offered sorting options (most don't, I think), the default is an optimization for time-on-site. Which is to say, when most people's experience of feeds is being manipulated by them, boring old reverse chronological sticks out.
You seem to be saying that Mastodon is bad because it's not Twitter. The whole point of Mastodon, and the article, is that it's not Twitter.
Most of the instances are smaller, and most of them have people within a single conceptual community. That's the point. It's not an echo chamber, it's a place where people can share information. It's not a place to rant about your political opinions (unless, you know, it is) it's a place to discuss things of common interest.
But all means, if you're worried about being in an echo chamber, go to Twitter and expose yourself to other opinions that you will disagree with, see no evidence for, and have no means of changing. But if you want to interact with people in a way that enriches you, your knowledge, and your appreciation of community, Twitter is not the place, and Mastodon might be.
Most of the instances are smaller, and most of them have people within a single conceptual community. That's the point. It's not an echo chamber, it's a place where people can share information. It's not a place to rant about your political opinions (unless, you know, it is) it's a place to discuss things of common interest.
But all means, if you're worried about being in an echo chamber, go to Twitter and expose yourself to other opinions that you will disagree with, see no evidence for, and have no means of changing. But if you want to interact with people in a way that enriches you, your knowledge, and your appreciation of community, Twitter is not the place, and Mastodon might be.
There's a huge conflation in people's views on this topic between "safe"* and "echo chamber".
A safe space should be a place with moderation guidelines around the type of discussion being had, rather than the type of views being discussed. We can have social media platforms free from overt abuse without restricting the views being aired.
I can have a conversation with someone where they espouse views that offend me without being personally offended by the discussion. If they start shouting insults in my face, then that's different: that's not an environment I want to be in.
- * This is purely anecdotal, but I think this conflation probably arises from discourse in modern identity politics, and the term "safe spaces". The intent of this term is often fine, imo, but for a subset of people it's extended not only to mean a space that is free from abuse, but rather a space that is free from people who don't understand your politics in great detail, to avoid being offended by "innocent ignorance" (e.g. using incorrect terminology).
A safe space should be a place with moderation guidelines around the type of discussion being had, rather than the type of views being discussed. We can have social media platforms free from overt abuse without restricting the views being aired.
I can have a conversation with someone where they espouse views that offend me without being personally offended by the discussion. If they start shouting insults in my face, then that's different: that's not an environment I want to be in.
- * This is purely anecdotal, but I think this conflation probably arises from discourse in modern identity politics, and the term "safe spaces". The intent of this term is often fine, imo, but for a subset of people it's extended not only to mean a space that is free from abuse, but rather a space that is free from people who don't understand your politics in great detail, to avoid being offended by "innocent ignorance" (e.g. using incorrect terminology).
In a domestic abuser safe space, the focus is on coping and healing, not on debating how much the woman (or man) contributed to the circumstances that resulted in their abuse. So in the non-pejorated (universities have destroyed its meaning by making entire campuses "safe spaces") term safe-space, some views are not appropriate, views that undermine the comfort of vulnerable people to express themselves fully.
> So in the non-pejorated term safe-space, some views are not appropriate, views that undermine the comfort of vulnerable people to express themselves fully.
Personally, I would take a slightly different perspective. I would say that in a domestic abuser safe-space, it's not so much that some views are not appropriate - it's that debate/discussion of circumstances is inappropriate. That's a behavioral restriction (don't engage in debate, this is not the place), rather than a viewpoint restriction (this is a place for debate, but not about that).
Personally, I would take a slightly different perspective. I would say that in a domestic abuser safe-space, it's not so much that some views are not appropriate - it's that debate/discussion of circumstances is inappropriate. That's a behavioral restriction (don't engage in debate, this is not the place), rather than a viewpoint restriction (this is a place for debate, but not about that).
I would add that none of this applies to social networks: safe spaces are designed for compromised individuals that are temporarily not healthy enough to engage in a few specific aspects of the full gamut of healthy human behavior.
> We can have social media platforms free from overt abuse without restricting the views being aired
In theory, yes. In reality, even in these hallowed and supposedly rational halls of HN, certain views are immediately hammered with downvotes and flagging and ominous warnings from moderators, no matter how urbane the tone, and often irregardless whether said views have a decent empirical underpinning.
In theory, yes. In reality, even in these hallowed and supposedly rational halls of HN, certain views are immediately hammered with downvotes and flagging and ominous warnings from moderators, no matter how urbane the tone, and often irregardless whether said views have a decent empirical underpinning.
HN has a very good, solid, commendable moderation policy. It's also an echo chamber. These are separate topics though: I (mostly* ) don't believe one feeds the other, I strongly believe the reasons for the echo chamber here are unrelated.
HN is not just a tech discussion forum, it's one administered and hosted by an influential, Silicon Valley VC company. This means, with zero input from moderators, the views expressed will naturally tend toward a worldview that endorses the activities of such a firm, and the tendencies of local SV culture.
* I say mostly as there was just one case here on HN in the not too distant past around political topics that were explicitly banned, which is the first and only example of moderation based on topic rather than based on behaviour I've seen here. That aside, my points above stand.
HN is not just a tech discussion forum, it's one administered and hosted by an influential, Silicon Valley VC company. This means, with zero input from moderators, the views expressed will naturally tend toward a worldview that endorses the activities of such a firm, and the tendencies of local SV culture.
* I say mostly as there was just one case here on HN in the not too distant past around political topics that were explicitly banned, which is the first and only example of moderation based on topic rather than based on behaviour I've seen here. That aside, my points above stand.
There are definitely some other topics that get moderated off HN - I've had a moderator tell me, basically, my viewpoint on a particular religious figure is not appropriate to state here (with a threat of being banned should I ever mention it again).
We don't see all moderator actions, nor what content gets flagged; moderation is pretty opaque here IMO. I've always assumed that was on purpose to allow commercial bias without begin overt about it.
We don't see all moderator actions, nor what content gets flagged; moderation is pretty opaque here IMO. I've always assumed that was on purpose to allow commercial bias without begin overt about it.
You are (mostly!) right. And I am not really objecting to the HN ethos and policy. I am just pointing it out.
Don't believe me? Try posting a gushing endorsement of your current president's policies (assuming you are American). Or take the road less traveled on any number of social, gender, what-have-you issues. See how it goes.
Don't believe me? Try posting a gushing endorsement of your current president's policies (assuming you are American). Or take the road less traveled on any number of social, gender, what-have-you issues. See how it goes.
A gushing endorsement of any president's policies would probably be objected to on the grounds of it being generally OT (most comments here don't really gush, strong endorsements of anything that go beyond simple "this works for me, I recommend it" are frowned upon).
A comment saying "I am a Trump supporter, which is relevant here because [x], and here are my related views on [current topic] from my perspective as such" voiced in a reasonable tone would be fine here, I think, for the most part. Wouldn't they?
There is another type of censorship that comes from a community continuously voicing one opinion, to the point that those holding an opposing opinion avoid voicing it for fear of general reputational damage within the community - this may result in less people posting about their support of Trump here (and there is very little of this), but I don't think that's related to the moderation.
A comment saying "I am a Trump supporter, which is relevant here because [x], and here are my related views on [current topic] from my perspective as such" voiced in a reasonable tone would be fine here, I think, for the most part. Wouldn't they?
There is another type of censorship that comes from a community continuously voicing one opinion, to the point that those holding an opposing opinion avoid voicing it for fear of general reputational damage within the community - this may result in less people posting about their support of Trump here (and there is very little of this), but I don't think that's related to the moderation.
[deleted]
ominous warnings from moderators, no matter how urbane the tone
Not once have I seen moderation based on viewpoint (and I do have showdead on). Without fail it has been because the poster repeatedly been an assclown in tone and wording, including when that moderation has been turned on myself. The fact that the moderated holds an unpopular opinion at times seems to be coincidence. There might be a correlation there, but it’s not with the moderation.
Not once have I seen moderation based on viewpoint (and I do have showdead on). Without fail it has been because the poster repeatedly been an assclown in tone and wording, including when that moderation has been turned on myself. The fact that the moderated holds an unpopular opinion at times seems to be coincidence. There might be a correlation there, but it’s not with the moderation.
A neatly unassailable point of view.
As if you supported your complaint with solid examples. The last time the moderators smacked you on the nose, you were making inflammatory comments with absolutely nothing to back them up. Just like this time: not one example of this egregious moderation.
That is a good example you've dug up there. Thank you.
I made a statement incontrovertibly grounded in fact, but not resonating well in the present eccosphere. And was promptly flagged and gagged.
I realise this is probably a waste of everybody's time and karma-points attempting to debate.
I made a statement incontrovertibly grounded in fact, but not resonating well in the present eccosphere. And was promptly flagged and gagged.
I realise this is probably a waste of everybody's time and karma-points attempting to debate.
There's a middle ground, and it's one we have to seek for ourselves. As someone who leans left, I enjoy reading the opinions of those leaning right (or Americans leaning left, which is still quite right for me as a European). This does give me a rather diverse worldview.
That said, there's also a lot of people I really don't care to hear about, because my time and attention is limited and the odds that they're going to be an enrichment of my world view is really low.
(Oh, and also: the only reason for me to downvote would be due to the remark about receiving downvotes. Next time, you might want to consider whether that remark adds to the conversation.)
That said, there's also a lot of people I really don't care to hear about, because my time and attention is limited and the odds that they're going to be an enrichment of my world view is really low.
(Oh, and also: the only reason for me to downvote would be due to the remark about receiving downvotes. Next time, you might want to consider whether that remark adds to the conversation.)
I think the key point here is choice: e.g. if you want to go listen to people rail about the government, you stop by the local pub. If you want to talk about cooking you join another group / activity.
Networks like Twitter and Facebook don't really facilitate this behaviour - you're being sprayed by endless stream of opinions which aren't grouped or filtered in a way that would be meaningful to you.
Networks like Twitter and Facebook don't really facilitate this behaviour - you're being sprayed by endless stream of opinions which aren't grouped or filtered in a way that would be meaningful to you.
I think people need safe echo chambers, even if their views are controversial; if you don't have a closer group of people to share your views with (and/or who share your viewpoints), you'll end up either just not participating at all (because someone will have problems with what you're saying), being a controversial person (and getting a lot of shit and/or even your account removed), or a boring or personality-less person with no personal views. I mean all of those work, but neither of those feel like "just be yourself".
It's probably in line with the thing about id, ego, and super-ego; you need spaces to align your id / ego, not just via the super-ego. if I'm using those phrases correctly. Probably not.
It's probably in line with the thing about id, ego, and super-ego; you need spaces to align your id / ego, not just via the super-ego. if I'm using those phrases correctly. Probably not.
Yeah. Picking a community is about deciding which echo chamber feels like home.
Like, on HN, if I talk about certain things I get downvoted to hell. So I talk about them elsewhere. Every community has its own biases, and people have different personas they apply to each community.
The fediverse is not a community. It's an ecosystem of loosely-interlinked communities, in about three or four layers: you've got the whole fediverse, the people on your instance, the people you follow, and the people you interact with. (On most instance software you also have topics, though not on Mastodon. There are hashtags too but they aren't used all that much and rarely does a community form around one, though they're useful for discovery.) You've got more potential points of segmentation than on Twitter, and more levels of potential control over what you see. (Add the possibility of having an account on several different instances and keeping to local rules and topics for those instances, and you have even greater control over how you present yourself and how your discussion goes.)
Like, on HN, if I talk about certain things I get downvoted to hell. So I talk about them elsewhere. Every community has its own biases, and people have different personas they apply to each community.
The fediverse is not a community. It's an ecosystem of loosely-interlinked communities, in about three or four layers: you've got the whole fediverse, the people on your instance, the people you follow, and the people you interact with. (On most instance software you also have topics, though not on Mastodon. There are hashtags too but they aren't used all that much and rarely does a community form around one, though they're useful for discovery.) You've got more potential points of segmentation than on Twitter, and more levels of potential control over what you see. (Add the possibility of having an account on several different instances and keeping to local rules and topics for those instances, and you have even greater control over how you present yourself and how your discussion goes.)
I think even calling it an "echo chamber" is a bit harsh. I have a home in the real world. When I am in it, I do not particularly want a nudist hippie drum circle in it. I do not want a Republican senator organizing his campaign in it. I don't need ten philosophy professors to come in and start debating the finer points of logical positivism. I don't want some guy to be there ranting and raving about how the lizard people are poisoning us all with chemtrails to prevent us from realizing how the world is going to end next Tuesday. There's nothing necessarily wrong with any of those things (though the last guy there might be mentally ill, but that's another complicated issue). But I don't want them in my space, all the time, without invitation (and even then, a solid exit plan).
This is not because I need my home to be an "echo chamber". It is because I need it to be a home. There's nothing wrong with having a "home" on the Internet either. It's just a lot harder to have one when you don't have width, height, and depth helping you delineate a space in the 3D universe, vs. the Internet, which easily degenerates into a zero-dimensional space where no distinctions can exist. Having a home doesn't prevent HN or Twitter from existing; nobody can stay in their homes all the time in either space. But the Internet is definitely getting less and less inviting for lacking the ability to have a "home" in it.
Thanksgiving just went by with HN denizens complaining a bit in some of the comment threads about how they are going to have to spend time with people they don't really want to, and the other holidays are coming up fast for a repeat performance. The homeless-Internet makes every day the day you have to spend like that, makes every minute the minute you have to spend like that. I fully believe people of a free society have some sort of obligation to engage with viewpoints they find uncomfortable (even if really nailing down what that means would be a challenge), but that doesn't mean everyone needs to be doing it all the time, without rest. I wouldn't expect that to produce understanding; I'd expect it to produce conflict and bitterness, not even necessarily because of the views themselves, but just from the sheer tiredness of never being able to rest anywhere for even a moment.
This is not because I need my home to be an "echo chamber". It is because I need it to be a home. There's nothing wrong with having a "home" on the Internet either. It's just a lot harder to have one when you don't have width, height, and depth helping you delineate a space in the 3D universe, vs. the Internet, which easily degenerates into a zero-dimensional space where no distinctions can exist. Having a home doesn't prevent HN or Twitter from existing; nobody can stay in their homes all the time in either space. But the Internet is definitely getting less and less inviting for lacking the ability to have a "home" in it.
Thanksgiving just went by with HN denizens complaining a bit in some of the comment threads about how they are going to have to spend time with people they don't really want to, and the other holidays are coming up fast for a repeat performance. The homeless-Internet makes every day the day you have to spend like that, makes every minute the minute you have to spend like that. I fully believe people of a free society have some sort of obligation to engage with viewpoints they find uncomfortable (even if really nailing down what that means would be a challenge), but that doesn't mean everyone needs to be doing it all the time, without rest. I wouldn't expect that to produce understanding; I'd expect it to produce conflict and bitterness, not even necessarily because of the views themselves, but just from the sheer tiredness of never being able to rest anywhere for even a moment.
I think it's okay to have some amount of an echo chamber, they happen more or less naturally just because of who you select to be in your personal sphere of influence, but I think I disagree with the way you describe it.
I don't think people need to exist in an echo chamber so they can "be themselves" without social consequence, I think that's actually the biggest problem with echo chambers and why people argue that they should be avoided. Rather, what we need is a higher standard of discourse outside of those echo chambers. It is possible to respectfully disagree with someone without shouting them down/trolling/removing them from the conversation, and from the other side, without reaching a point of disruption that someone might consider that a good resolution. The failure happens at both sides of the conversation, and interacting outside of echo chambers seems to me the only way to gain experience in interacting civilly.
I don't think people need to exist in an echo chamber so they can "be themselves" without social consequence, I think that's actually the biggest problem with echo chambers and why people argue that they should be avoided. Rather, what we need is a higher standard of discourse outside of those echo chambers. It is possible to respectfully disagree with someone without shouting them down/trolling/removing them from the conversation, and from the other side, without reaching a point of disruption that someone might consider that a good resolution. The failure happens at both sides of the conversation, and interacting outside of echo chambers seems to me the only way to gain experience in interacting civilly.
i think the problem is people aren't wired correctly for this option, which wasn't available in a high-bandwidth edition even 20 years ago, to be safe for societies in the long run. the dopamine-driven positive feedback loop that happens in such echo chambers cause a runaway reaction of radicalizing the opinion of the whole bubble to the point where it's a religious issue when confronted about it. you almost admit it yourself and correctly diagnose that HN is also like that.
no idea about that psychology stuff. i heard those words before :)
no idea about that psychology stuff. i heard those words before :)
Echo chambers obviously happen even on sites with larger userbases (follower groups on Twitter, particular subreddits, etc.).
I don't know if having walls built into the system helps or hurts. Or does nothing at all. Ultimately, I don't think it matters since people are going to organize into some form of group no matter what.
I don't know if having walls built into the system helps or hurts. Or does nothing at all. Ultimately, I don't think it matters since people are going to organize into some form of group no matter what.
An echo chamber would appear to be a derisive term for instances of freedom of association. That being said, it would be nice if "links" to alternate viewpoints could be kept in close proximity to said chambers.
What should bother more people are echo chambers pretending to be open forums. Look no farther than Wikipedia for an ostensibly open community which is in fact an echo chamber allowing no alternate viewpoints; any remark less than fawning for the state of Israel or Judaism is flushed straight down the memory hole and scrubbed off the "Talk" page by an army of Hasbara trolls.
What should bother more people are echo chambers pretending to be open forums. Look no farther than Wikipedia for an ostensibly open community which is in fact an echo chamber allowing no alternate viewpoints; any remark less than fawning for the state of Israel or Judaism is flushed straight down the memory hole and scrubbed off the "Talk" page by an army of Hasbara trolls.
What I've never understood about the echo chamber argument is the notion that it's merely an unstimulating exchange of views echoed back and forth that entails loss of social richness or complexity.
The ways communities differ from each other depend on so many particularized variables, as different from each other as fingerprints. They can be stagnant, or they can be special, precisely because of their convergence on certain ideas & values. But that depends on the details, so the blanket charge of sameness feels intellectually lazy.
And let's not forget that we're talking about addressing a specific set of problems: the whack-a-mole problem with bots & trolls, the problem of social cooling, the constant brand building, the bad faith arguing. Not wanting those very specific things still leaves wide open possibilities for how interaction can work within a community. If the desire to solves those problems look to you like a desire for an echo chamber, it might say a lot about the things you associate with normalcy.
The ways communities differ from each other depend on so many particularized variables, as different from each other as fingerprints. They can be stagnant, or they can be special, precisely because of their convergence on certain ideas & values. But that depends on the details, so the blanket charge of sameness feels intellectually lazy.
And let's not forget that we're talking about addressing a specific set of problems: the whack-a-mole problem with bots & trolls, the problem of social cooling, the constant brand building, the bad faith arguing. Not wanting those very specific things still leaves wide open possibilities for how interaction can work within a community. If the desire to solves those problems look to you like a desire for an echo chamber, it might say a lot about the things you associate with normalcy.
Not to mention foreign entities trying to recruit or manipulate your views and information. Someone only letting in their interests is different and probably better than being a free-for-all target for motivated actors.
But Facebook actively tries to insulate you from most of your friends, except when it's trying to start a fight to juice its "engagement" numbers. It actively creates filter bubbles. So I would say it's an improvement. https://twitter.com/Hellchick/status/942863353403150336
I think there is a big difference between self-curating the sort of people you want to interact with, and being subjected to algorithmic feed shaping and advertising that surreptitiously pushes only the voices that it thinks you'd be happy hearing.
Or, as it turns out more often, the voices it thinks you'd be most unhappy to hear. Negative emotions are more sticky than positive emotions, and Facebook, et. al., optimize for engagement, not user happiness.
Or, as it turns out more often, the voices it thinks you'd be most unhappy to hear. Negative emotions are more sticky than positive emotions, and Facebook, et. al., optimize for engagement, not user happiness.
I think this is a great point.
As I put in a different comment, people are naturally going to organize into groups no matter what. You also can't realistically expose yourself to everything (nor would you want to). So there has to be something that decides what you're going to see.
At the end of the day, as faulty as they are, I'd rather have individuals deciding for themselves what they want to see rather than profit-oriented groups that thrive on the misery of their users.
As I put in a different comment, people are naturally going to organize into groups no matter what. You also can't realistically expose yourself to everything (nor would you want to). So there has to be something that decides what you're going to see.
At the end of the day, as faulty as they are, I'd rather have individuals deciding for themselves what they want to see rather than profit-oriented groups that thrive on the misery of their users.
The auto suggestion of even more extreme feeds/views tends to polarize
The whole point of Mastodon is that it's open source and decentralized. Anybody can run an instance any way they like. There are no global rules that apply to everybody. There are already many instances with wildly different rules and demographics.
The barrier to running your own instance is pretty low nowadays as hosting is becoming very cheap, and Docker removed a lot of the hassle associated with setting up an instance.
The barrier to running your own instance is pretty low nowadays as hosting is becoming very cheap, and Docker removed a lot of the hassle associated with setting up an instance.
When I try to read opposing viewpoints I don't go looking for it on social media filled with bad faith trolls, shouting matches and dumb comebacks.
Oh yeah, we need a purely unfiltered web to prevent echo chambers forming! Let's see what that turns out like—oh that's right, 4chan. (Do we really need more 4chans?)
It looks like even with an unfiltered world, echo chambers still evolve. It's the nature of communities.
It looks like even with an unfiltered world, echo chambers still evolve. It's the nature of communities.
4chan isn't unfiltered. People left it in droves for sites like 8chan because they found the moderation of 4chan too restrictive. 8chan also isn't unfiltered. Neither is Voat, which is where everyone who found Reddit too stifling wound up. No site on the open web is truly unfiltered, because that would allow for illegal content, and the men with guns in vans are a real thing. Too many people mistake the freedom to be intolerant, rude or uncivil with free speech.
>Do we really need more 4chans?
Yes, if by "4chans" you mean anonymous platforms. That doesn't necessarily mean we need more of the toxicity at the bottom of the cesspool that imageboard culture is known for, but I do think we need more sites which push back against the hostile patterns of social media, which include "real name" policies and moderation or filtering that tries to shape communities from the top down.
The truth here is that one person's echo chamber is another person's culture, and that "unfiltered" is just another kind of echo chamber.
>Do we really need more 4chans?
Yes, if by "4chans" you mean anonymous platforms. That doesn't necessarily mean we need more of the toxicity at the bottom of the cesspool that imageboard culture is known for, but I do think we need more sites which push back against the hostile patterns of social media, which include "real name" policies and moderation or filtering that tries to shape communities from the top down.
The truth here is that one person's echo chamber is another person's culture, and that "unfiltered" is just another kind of echo chamber.
I think this academic search for an example of purely unfiltered community is getting in the way of the practical point that communities, however filtered they are, are clearly more or less filtered relative to one another, and that yields observable effects.
4chan is clearly less filtered than reddit, and we can see how differences in the degree of filtering creates a race to the bottom.
4chan is too restrictive for some people who want to race to an even deeper bottom, and on and on.
>That doesn't necessarily mean we need more of the toxicity at the bottom of the cesspool that imageboard culture is known for
But the whole point is that the less filtered the community, the more a toxic lowest common denominator develops, which is not preferable to the things decried as "echo chambers" in more filtered communities.
4chan is clearly less filtered than reddit, and we can see how differences in the degree of filtering creates a race to the bottom.
4chan is too restrictive for some people who want to race to an even deeper bottom, and on and on.
>That doesn't necessarily mean we need more of the toxicity at the bottom of the cesspool that imageboard culture is known for
But the whole point is that the less filtered the community, the more a toxic lowest common denominator develops, which is not preferable to the things decried as "echo chambers" in more filtered communities.
Wonder what 4chan users actually think about their platform, wouldn't be shocked if they feel the same way the article writer does about Mastodon.
I mean there has to be some reason people spend their time there.
I mean there has to be some reason people spend their time there.
>(my karma will likely not survive this) the title should probably read "Mastadon makes the Internet feel like an safe echo chamber again."
This is a very well represented viewpoint on HackerNews. Your karma has nothing to fear.
This is a very well represented viewpoint on HackerNews. Your karma has nothing to fear.
the problem is that some communities have devolved into:
person a: "my opinion is that green is a nice color."
person b: "i hope you die a painful death."
I'm happy to hear differing opinions. But watching people threaten and harass each other is something that quickly turns me away from online communities.
person a: "my opinion is that green is a nice color."
person b: "i hope you die a painful death."
I'm happy to hear differing opinions. But watching people threaten and harass each other is something that quickly turns me away from online communities.
I think your concerns are valid but on the other hand; Twitter is already an echo chamber. People make it to even worse echo chambers.
On Mastodon you have a choice. You can be on an instance that does echochamber and safespace the discussion or you pick one that doesn't. Or make your own.
On Mastodon you have a choice. You can be on an instance that does echochamber and safespace the discussion or you pick one that doesn't. Or make your own.
This is a classic example of someone projecting their values, politics, and fear onto a technology and article with only minimal reading. That's not how Mastodon works at all, and anyone who's been there can say there is plenty of dissent and argument there.
The principle difference of Mastodon to Twitter and Facebook is that it's not a fully connected network. Instead of trying to paper over this, Mastodon highlights this feature. You have a "local" timeline and a "global" timeline. The global timelines are assembled dynamically based on what people on the instance follow. This allows instances to collectively shape their experience, and they tend to have extremely different feels.
For example, I was part of a private instance focused around hardware and crypto hackers, and I have a primary account on the original .social instnace. The .social instance has high exposure and plenty of obnoxious redditor-types bellowing their politics and wondering why they aren't getting applause, mixed among a wide array of more interesting people. I'm just as likely to get into a halting and awkward conversation with a Japanese artist as I am to end up talking about javascript critics with Brendan Eich as I am to see someone with a kekistan flag talking about their ignorance and how net neutrality is good.
The other private instance was totally different. The entire experience was great. You could make intelligent conversation about tech and expect intelligent responses. The network gradually connected to other people in the fediverse and even the global feed started to get very good. People began to use that instance as a bridge for good follows in the distributed software, hardware, and digital art scene. As that connectivity grew, so did the value of the instance. I'm very sad that the owner was unable to maintain it for a few months and the whole thing fell apart.
If your primary goal is to yell at people until they are browbeaten down? Yeah, that's a bad environment for that. But it's also a win, because this neighborhood may kick you out but I'm sure there is another one that will have you, no questions asked. If you're like most people looking for specific subjects for engagement and some control of the overall quality? It's amazing. Unprecedented, even! It takes time and effort for these instances to grow, but unlike many social networks there is actually a legitimate (i.e., not shitposting and moderation evading) reasons to have more than one account, or prefer one server over another.
While instance connectivity across the total network is very powerful, I think there is a lot to be said for requiring a great deal more inertia to have a hastily penned 200-500c comment flashed in front of millions of people. And in many ways it's the same principle as Hacker News was founded on: it's a cul de sac in the internet, a smaller place where rules are more enforcable and governance is slightly less arbitrary. Unlike Hacker News, it actually has controlled ways to knit together. Imagine if my viewing habits started to affect the top feed.
Finally, as an aside, please stop with this "echo chamber" rhetoric. It's counter-productive. There is nothing wrong or shameful about community selection. No one is obligated to engage with anyone else. We here at Hacker News are beneficiaries of this. As problematic and lacking in tradecraft as this forum often is, its still a much more reliable place to gain technical insight than many subreddits. Similarly, Stack Overflow is a "tech echochamber" but what echos is the community consensus on how to build things. That's a good echo, better than the noise you'd get on Yahoo! answers. The only people who have a vested interest in disrupting these dynamics are people for whom consensus, truth and trust are objectionable concepts.
The principle difference of Mastodon to Twitter and Facebook is that it's not a fully connected network. Instead of trying to paper over this, Mastodon highlights this feature. You have a "local" timeline and a "global" timeline. The global timelines are assembled dynamically based on what people on the instance follow. This allows instances to collectively shape their experience, and they tend to have extremely different feels.
For example, I was part of a private instance focused around hardware and crypto hackers, and I have a primary account on the original .social instnace. The .social instance has high exposure and plenty of obnoxious redditor-types bellowing their politics and wondering why they aren't getting applause, mixed among a wide array of more interesting people. I'm just as likely to get into a halting and awkward conversation with a Japanese artist as I am to end up talking about javascript critics with Brendan Eich as I am to see someone with a kekistan flag talking about their ignorance and how net neutrality is good.
The other private instance was totally different. The entire experience was great. You could make intelligent conversation about tech and expect intelligent responses. The network gradually connected to other people in the fediverse and even the global feed started to get very good. People began to use that instance as a bridge for good follows in the distributed software, hardware, and digital art scene. As that connectivity grew, so did the value of the instance. I'm very sad that the owner was unable to maintain it for a few months and the whole thing fell apart.
If your primary goal is to yell at people until they are browbeaten down? Yeah, that's a bad environment for that. But it's also a win, because this neighborhood may kick you out but I'm sure there is another one that will have you, no questions asked. If you're like most people looking for specific subjects for engagement and some control of the overall quality? It's amazing. Unprecedented, even! It takes time and effort for these instances to grow, but unlike many social networks there is actually a legitimate (i.e., not shitposting and moderation evading) reasons to have more than one account, or prefer one server over another.
While instance connectivity across the total network is very powerful, I think there is a lot to be said for requiring a great deal more inertia to have a hastily penned 200-500c comment flashed in front of millions of people. And in many ways it's the same principle as Hacker News was founded on: it's a cul de sac in the internet, a smaller place where rules are more enforcable and governance is slightly less arbitrary. Unlike Hacker News, it actually has controlled ways to knit together. Imagine if my viewing habits started to affect the top feed.
Finally, as an aside, please stop with this "echo chamber" rhetoric. It's counter-productive. There is nothing wrong or shameful about community selection. No one is obligated to engage with anyone else. We here at Hacker News are beneficiaries of this. As problematic and lacking in tradecraft as this forum often is, its still a much more reliable place to gain technical insight than many subreddits. Similarly, Stack Overflow is a "tech echochamber" but what echos is the community consensus on how to build things. That's a good echo, better than the noise you'd get on Yahoo! answers. The only people who have a vested interest in disrupting these dynamics are people for whom consensus, truth and trust are objectionable concepts.
I think it's still a bit different. On Twitter, you still sort of fear retribution from the people within your bubble, since it's encouraged to "roast" and win arguments by getting more likes. I get the impression Mastodon is more forgiving, which makes me want to try it out.
> (my karma will likely not survive this) the title should probably read "Mastadon makes the Internet feel like an safe echo chamber again."
As someone who is banned from Twitter but not on Mastadon.
Eh, I don't think your comment is fair to the OP.
As someone who is banned from Twitter but not on Mastadon.
Eh, I don't think your comment is fair to the OP.
On the contrary, the "bubble", by definition, requires people to be unaware of it - to believe that a biased conversation space is unbiased.
OTOH if you join the Jazz Appreciation Society you are fully aware that participants have music preferences. There's no bubble or echo chamber in that.
EDIT: and here comes the usual bunch of downvotes. Speaking of echo chamber.
OTOH if you join the Jazz Appreciation Society you are fully aware that participants have music preferences. There's no bubble or echo chamber in that.
EDIT: and here comes the usual bunch of downvotes. Speaking of echo chamber.
You can recognize that you're biased and still be biased.
Walling one's self off from ads and spam though?
I switched from Twitter to Mastodon a month or two ago and mostly like it. The tech platform is fine; not as polished as Twitter but it works and has some nice features like spoiler warnings. But the community is very thin there. Folks are trying and in some subcultures it's pretty great, but I'm finding I'm missing the wider world of Twitter sometimes.
Advice from a longer-time user: browse your instance's federated timeline and follow lots (way more than you would on Twitter!) of interesting people from there. You'll soon start seeing the stuff they promote and finding new users to follow.
Non-users: the federated timeline is basically the union of all users followed by anybody on your instance. If I follow {a,b,c} and you follow {b,c,d}, the federated timeline will have all toots from {a,b,c,d}. This timeline is also what gives instances their "feel". If you're on an instance with a lot of geeks, they'll probably follow a lot of other geeks, and the federated timeline will have lots of geekness. Same for s/geek/cat lover/ or witch or activist.
Non-users: the federated timeline is basically the union of all users followed by anybody on your instance. If I follow {a,b,c} and you follow {b,c,d}, the federated timeline will have all toots from {a,b,c,d}. This timeline is also what gives instances their "feel". If you're on an instance with a lot of geeks, they'll probably follow a lot of other geeks, and the federated timeline will have lots of geekness. Same for s/geek/cat lover/ or witch or activist.
This is an interesting new world. I'm using Telegram and Discord to be a part of niche interest groups (certain video games and sports). Same for WhatsApp. I don't think these alternative communication platforms will dethrone Twitter, Facebook, or Reddit but for people who seek them out they may have more enhanced interactions.
> to be a part of niche interest groups
> Same for WhatsApp
No desktop client. NO DESKTOP CLIENT. How do you type?!
No desktop client. NO DESKTOP CLIENT. How do you type?!
https://www.whatsapp.com/download. Is that not what you are looking for?
"WhatsApp must be installed on your phone."
(Also, no linux client.)
(Also, no linux client.)
I wish they designed it such that one's identity were not bound to a server. They should have bound it to a crypto key or DNS (like email). With the current design, if you use a sever you don't have control over and it disappears, you lose that identity.
This question occurred to me while reading the article. Thanks for pointing this out.
This seems like a serious limitation. Is the solution just for everyone to run their own instances?
It's really exactly like email, though. If you're currently [email protected] but you want to switch to [email protected], you'll have to notify all your contacts to start using your new address. At least in Mastodon you can update your @user@instance-a profile to say that you've now moved to @user@instance-b so that your followers know where to find you.
It's exactly like email if you use gmail or yahoo. So... WHAT'S THE POINT? Whynot use twitter then?
With email, you can use gmail, or yahoo, or buy a domain and host it yourself, or pay a provider (including google) to host your domain.
Are there options to host your domain on Mastodon without hosting it yourself?
Also, what are the chances that the current servers/providers will still be around in 2 or 5 years?
With email, you can use gmail, or yahoo, or buy a domain and host it yourself, or pay a provider (including google) to host your domain.
Are there options to host your domain on Mastodon without hosting it yourself?
Also, what are the chances that the current servers/providers will still be around in 2 or 5 years?
Yes, there's for-pay Mastodon hosting.
As for why not Twitter: suppose you want a private instance for your family. Or company. Or softball team. Mastodon makes it trivially easy to launch an invitation-only server so that you can chat and share images with just those people.
It also means that you and I can host instances with different community standards. Maybe you want to focus on liberal horse-lovers while I want a hangout for Republican fisherman. Mastodon lets us both go our own way, and gives us tools to decide whether our very different servers should even talk to each other.
As for why not Twitter: suppose you want a private instance for your family. Or company. Or softball team. Mastodon makes it trivially easy to launch an invitation-only server so that you can chat and share images with just those people.
It also means that you and I can host instances with different community standards. Maybe you want to focus on liberal horse-lovers while I want a hangout for Republican fisherman. Mastodon lets us both go our own way, and gives us tools to decide whether our very different servers should even talk to each other.
As others have replied/posted, the concept is not unlike email. And considering the billions of people who use email - and many who at least numerous times in their lifetime have switched email addresses - this hasn't stopped adoption of email over time, right?
Yes
That seems like a major obstacle to mass adoption. The average HNer will understand that, and be willing and able to do it, but the average person will not.
Not quite. The average person will likely not care too much about their identity being bound to a particular server (if they're aware of it at all), especially as many large and stable instances are available for guests to register and use.
It's based off GNU Social, which is based off Ostatus. It uses an email like identifier. The term 'server' in this case is really domain. You are correct about loosing that identity if the server goes away, but that is pretty much the case with anything you don't directly control. GNU social has a single user mode for this very reason.
"that is pretty much the case with anything you don't directly control."
I disagree, you can own a DNS domain and change mail provider, bringing your identity and domain along.
Also, it's not because other services do it that it's a good thing!
I disagree, you can own a DNS domain and change mail provider, bringing your identity and domain along.
Also, it's not because other services do it that it's a good thing!
FYI I have a Mastodon instance running at https://freebeer.com if anyone wants an @freebeer.com username. No echo chamber as of yet.
Mastodon will very likely succumb to the same fate as Usenet, unless traffic/transit costs become irrelevant soon.
Also, it would greatly benefit from a proper client that keeps a backup for all your posts and account data. The instance I joined went down permanently, it seems.
Also, it would greatly benefit from a proper client that keeps a backup for all your posts and account data. The instance I joined went down permanently, it seems.
Media is cached locally on the followers' servers by default. If you follow me, and I upload a photo, my server will send it to yours. When you view it, you'll see the copy from your server, not mine.
This is changeable per-instance. For example, I don't want to host a lot of hentai or lolicon, even if my users were into that kind of stuff. I can configure my instance specifically not to cache media from servers that host it.
This is changeable per-instance. For example, I don't want to host a lot of hentai or lolicon, even if my users were into that kind of stuff. I can configure my instance specifically not to cache media from servers that host it.
It is hard to choose an instance if you do not know whether the instance is defederated by other instances. The fediverse is fractured into (roughly) safe spaces and free speech zones.
This article reads to me as if Tumblr had renamed itself "Mastodon," as the cultures sound so similar.
Both entail the notion of instances, Tumblr with subdomains (.tumblr.com) and Mastodon with users on one's own or another's instance (@*). I wonder if there's a sense of ownership entailed in that that leads to greater personal disclosure, which Twitter hasn't brought out.
Both entail the notion of instances, Tumblr with subdomains (.tumblr.com) and Mastodon with users on one's own or another's instance (@*). I wonder if there's a sense of ownership entailed in that that leads to greater personal disclosure, which Twitter hasn't brought out.
Something is broken with the scrolling on that page. If I press arrow-down or page-down, nothing happens. It just shows "toot toot", not a great experience.
Only after 20 seconds I figured that clicking the page and then the button makes it work. Other pages don't have this problem.
Only after 20 seconds I figured that clicking the page and then the button makes it work. Other pages don't have this problem.
[deleted]
Well, also when other platforms seek to try to "verify" your accounts with all sorts of mechanisms, escaping to self hosting/federated platforms start to make sense for some.
[deleted]
Yet another social-media thing.
I thought the consensus in non-social-media media was that all social media was unhealthy.
Now we're getting an ad (or infomercial, if you prefer that term) from traditional media for an open-sourced Facebook / Twitter wannabe killer.
I guess they just take whatever stance that fits their unstated goals.
I thought the consensus in non-social-media media was that all social media was unhealthy.
Now we're getting an ad (or infomercial, if you prefer that term) from traditional media for an open-sourced Facebook / Twitter wannabe killer.
I guess they just take whatever stance that fits their unstated goals.
>> Yet another social-media company.
There's no company.
There's no company.
Yet another social-media whatchamaycallit.
Somehow I end up not following my own advice and simplifying and making only one point per comment. That way people wouldn't focus on a minor thing about it and ignore the rest of it.
(The advice being: I think a good part of the reason why some one-line comments end up getting so many upvotes is because they say only one thing. The more things you try to say then the more reasons there will be for people to disagree and downvote you so no one else reads your message.)
Somehow I end up not following my own advice and simplifying and making only one point per comment. That way people wouldn't focus on a minor thing about it and ignore the rest of it.
(The advice being: I think a good part of the reason why some one-line comments end up getting so many upvotes is because they say only one thing. The more things you try to say then the more reasons there will be for people to disagree and downvote you so no one else reads your message.)
Your comment ranged from unhinged rant to moderate and reasonable depending on which edit you were on. I decided to focus on the part that was both consistent and worth addressing.
Thank you for addressing the reasonable and consistent part of my unhinged rant.
I know what the real problem is. No rapport was established. You are in the defensive because you feel I corrected you as well and thus passed judgement. It's human relationships.
I know what the real problem is. No rapport was established. You are in the defensive because you feel I corrected you as well and thus passed judgement. It's human relationships.
There’s no company. There’s a W3C-approved standard (two of them, actually - OStatus and ActivityPub), a guy who spent a year or two writing a user-friendly client for them, a Github project with a growing number of contributors, a bunch of other people hosting servers, and an assortment of Patreon campaigns to pay for continued development and to help pay the bills for the servers that aren’t being run out of someone's deep pocket. And enough people deciding that they are fed up with Twitter for there to be enough of a community to make it worthwhile.
Corporate-owned social media that tries to pay its development and hosting costs by putting as many ads in front of your eyeballs is unhealthy. The fact that this is pretty much all we've had for the past decade or two makes it easy to assume this means all social media is unhealthy.
Corporate-owned social media that tries to pay its development and hosting costs by putting as many ads in front of your eyeballs is unhealthy. The fact that this is pretty much all we've had for the past decade or two makes it easy to assume this means all social media is unhealthy.
One can argue that replacing real-life relationships with digital ones is unhealthy.
And digital lives are more easily monitored by governments -- not just the American or European governments, which is already bad enough. This too is dangerous.
Being able to go into a community of like-minded people translates in the meat-world to meat communities where your neighbors might have a completely different perception of reality than each other. This too is problematic.
I understand now that there is no company behind it. It's open-source and developed with good intentions, but as the saying goes, the graveyard is full of good intentions. I deeply distrust anything that entices me to reveal personal data in a medium monitored by the secret police.
How much these objections weigh for you depends on your priorities. Non-corporate, open-sourced social-media isn't significantly different for me to assuage my very real Internet privacy terrors.
And digital lives are more easily monitored by governments -- not just the American or European governments, which is already bad enough. This too is dangerous.
Being able to go into a community of like-minded people translates in the meat-world to meat communities where your neighbors might have a completely different perception of reality than each other. This too is problematic.
I understand now that there is no company behind it. It's open-source and developed with good intentions, but as the saying goes, the graveyard is full of good intentions. I deeply distrust anything that entices me to reveal personal data in a medium monitored by the secret police.
How much these objections weigh for you depends on your priorities. Non-corporate, open-sourced social-media isn't significantly different for me to assuage my very real Internet privacy terrors.
You have a problem discovering people in real life if you have niche interests -- I was talking to a gay grad student and he explained how isolating it is outside major cities. Relying on organic social dynamics to do their job will get you nowhere. The chief concern for projects like this is can they gain enough traction to be useful. Also it's unhealthy to have expectations of absolute privacy, in private communication you rely that the contents are not leaked from one party -- with data driven platforms you give a little piece of information in return for a service. Hell, half the businesses on here can only work because it's possible to market to niche groups and for niche interests. This is peacetime if you ignore what is effectively a low intensity conflict for the West happening in the Middle East. If the country you are living in was mobilized for war you would have zero expectations for anything, individual concerns of autonomy are irrelevant at that point and with very good reason -- no gains made for individual privacy would remain in that situation anyways. The 'secret police' doesn't care since they are concerned with the willing and unwilling agents of other countries 'secret police' -- there are plenty of targets to fry before they ever bother with you, aiding and abetting their primary concerns is a quick way to move yourself up the list.
> One can argue that replacing real-life relationships with digital ones is unhealthy.
One can argue lots of things, but I think it's a crucial support network for people not near lots of like-minded others. What "real life" peer group is a trans kid in small town in Kansas supposed to hang out with and get support from?
One can argue lots of things, but I think it's a crucial support network for people not near lots of like-minded others. What "real life" peer group is a trans kid in small town in Kansas supposed to hang out with and get support from?
That is a fair point.
I worry for what transpeople -- who lack meat-world social choices -- are enticed to reveal about themselves online to the secret police. Our governments' thugs are happy to lend an unsympathetic ear to their problems.
I worry for what transpeople -- who lack meat-world social choices -- are enticed to reveal about themselves online to the secret police. Our governments' thugs are happy to lend an unsympathetic ear to their problems.
That's a fair point, too. And non-governmentally, there's nothing preventing Joe Neonazi from creating an LGBTQ-friendly-seeming instance to collect people to harass.
One mitigating factor, though, is that there seems to be a wider disconnect between Mastodon IDs and real life IDs than there is between real life and Twitter. I have plenty of Mastodon friends who could be sitting at the next desk as I type this for all I know. Also, having multiple Mastodon accounts is seen as a perfectly normal and acceptable thing to do, so @[email protected] might post vastly different stuff than on their @[email protected].
One mitigating factor, though, is that there seems to be a wider disconnect between Mastodon IDs and real life IDs than there is between real life and Twitter. I have plenty of Mastodon friends who could be sitting at the next desk as I type this for all I know. Also, having multiple Mastodon accounts is seen as a perfectly normal and acceptable thing to do, so @[email protected] might post vastly different stuff than on their @[email protected].
Joke, right? Nobody wants to give up the internet for home.
Do try SDF.org's instance (as well as their other services).
https://mastodon.sdf.org/about
https://mastodon.sdf.org/about
"Not exactly a high bar to clear given the garbage pile Twitter has become. ... It’s the place where being a Nazi will result in the severe consequence of losing verification."
Ummm, what? Defending nazis are we?
Ummm, what? Defending nazis are we?
Yes, that's wrong. If the author wanted to say that Twitter censures, that's not precisely the right example.
I believe the author intended that to be sarcastic. Their point being that being a Nazi should result in a stronger censure than losing a mostly-meaningless check mark.
[deleted]
https://startuplab.io/post/deploying-mastodon-on-digital-oce...
Also I've built a @HackerNewsBot that shares the most upvoted HN articles:
https://mastodon.social/@HackerNewsBot
(source code: https://github.com/raymestalez/mastodon-hnbot)