If it ends up that meta is able to destroy the fediverse simply by joining it, that is a design flaw on OUR end.
“Simply by joining it” is not an accurate representation of what will happen in the slightest. Meta is not some scrappy little Lemmy instance operator relying on donations to keep the lights on, they’re one of the biggest companies in the world who simply do not care about fair competition or open standards, and they have a proven track record of using that position to either buy out or destroy competition.
When Meta have so much money that they can simply outspend any other fediverse platform and become dominant that way, how is that a design flaw on our end? You can make a project as resistant to corporate overreach as you like, infrastructure to run it still costs money and there is no fediverse operator on the face of the earth that is going to be able to outspend Meta when it comes to infrastructure and R&D. How is defederation not an appropriate response when smaller instances are crippled under the inevitable load stemming from Metas users?
Corporations have been embracing, extending and extinguishing FOSS projects in the tech space for decades now, and their demise has rarely been because of a fatal flaw in the projects themselves. It’s been an intentional play by Microsoft, Google et al to ensure that there is no viable open alternative to their walled gardens.
Echoing this, please read the linked post. There is a big difference between technology and it's implementation vs the community of users of it and what they are using to do so.
When Meta have so much money that they can simply outspend any other fediverse platform and become dominant that way, how is that a design flaw on our end?
It's a design flaw when simply "outspending" other fediverse platforms allows you to dominate them. There are ways to design a system where that's not possible.
The fact that those other fediverse platforms can defederate from the "big money instance" if they don't like what it's doing, for example, is a part of the design of the fediverse that can help counter influence like that. You can't force other instances to federate with you even if you have an enormous amount of money, and even if you did manage it in specific cases other people without that vulnerability can just spin up new instances.
We'll see whether this sort of thing is "enough", I guess, because Meta is coming one way or the other. If it turns out that stronger defenses are needed then there are other technical methods that could be used to strengthen the decentralized nature of the fediverse.
I think defederation is not really that useful in this case, because then your users will just leave and sign up for the platform where they can view where the most content is. Although I do agree with your general premise.
The situation I'm thinking of is one where Meta creates Threads (or whatever it will be called), and then a bunch of people defederate. In that scenario, there will of course be big servers who choose to federate with Threads. Given Meta's reach and influence, they will undoubtedly have one of the bigger instances, so a lot of politicians, journalists and everyday people will go there.
Making it so people can't see that content will just make the fediverse become more centralized, because people will just go to the bigger instances that will allow for them to see that content, or just go sign up for threads. I think that's bad because it creates further centralization, even if they're providing the content that people want.
Even though I know a lot of people disagree, we need all types of content in order for this place to grow. I'm not talking about any far-right nonsense, but even garbage like tabloid fodder and stupid meme bullshit will keep our networks alive and users engaging. The easier it is for the average person to use the better. If the point is not profit, then it must be to allow people to come together and talk about almost whatever with almost whoever, and wherever.
Making it so people can't see that content will just make the fediverse become more centralized, because people will just go to the bigger instances that will allow for them to see that content, or just go sign up for threads.
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding something, but it sounds to me like you're still saying "if Meta is providing the content that people want and it's not available elsewhere then people will go to Meta for it."
And that seems fine by me, in that case they're competing by providing the content that people want. However, not everyone wants the same thing. I have no interest in "following" politicians or celebrities. A lot of the sorts of conversations I'm interested in do not benefit from having a huge number of people in them. So even if Meta is some kind of juggernaut there's going to be people (like me) who don't want to participate in a juggernaut. The smaller defederated instances will still be attractive.
Then it's no different than them just jumping back to Facebook or other corporate owned social media like the current situation. That's not a lost. The lost is if they are allowed to federate in the first place and people get used to it. But even then as the concept of enshittification becomes more well known more users will also be resistant to the idea.
When this was linked a previous time, I wrote up a reply to it which I think applies here as well, so I'm gonna shamelessly copy and paste myself 🙂
I think the big thing to take away from that article is... XMPP developers cared so much about retaining federation with Google Talk that they "became watchers and debuggers of Google’s servers" as it is put there. Google came in and said "this is our house now, adapt or die."
For our current fediverse, it's important I think, as a community, we put our foot down with Meta and say "no, this is our house. If you don't adapt to us, we don't federate with you. If you deviate from the ActivityPub protocol or our other implementations that we do above the ActivityPub protocol (things like boosts/upvotes/downvotes standards as agreed upon by Lemmy/kbin, for example), you will break federation with us, and we will be okay with that." We cannot become the Meta watchers.
ActivityPub is just a protocol and they can use it. It doesn't mean they have to be compatible with us. Let them have their Twitter/Instagram hybrid application. Do we care that much whether we can or cannot see their posts?
To your point, many of us will defederate, either out of politics or financial necessity. There's rumors milling around that Meta / Threads will only initially federate with a few trusted larger instances and be monetarily compensated for it (aka those who will make a deal with the devil to moderate - more on my thoughts on that here).
It may come to the point where a lot of us are running on our own smaller "Fediverse", intentionally divorced from Meta and those instances which have federated with Meta and taken their advertisements and paid posts. If this is the case, we must take the bad with the good - we will always be smaller and niche, and our less techno-idealistic friends will not join our tiny Fediverse because the barrier to entry will remain high.
Why will Meta care? To their large user base, they are on the “federation” and we’ll be the odd ones out. Their users won’t care either. They’ll just use it. And Meta can spin up any number of servers they want. Any company can.
They might not, and frankly that would be the ideal solution, wouldn't it? They fork Mastodon, have their own isolated little universe, and we have our own little Fediverse over here. But the rumors swirling indicate that they do want to federate with larger instances that will be willing to follow their moderation standards and optionally take advertisements - I explain over here why that is likely the preferable approach for Meta.
It will follow the EEE flow along with their normal anti-competition tactics. First, they embrace: their interest in federation is only to give them the access to content that will make their platform not look empty, allowing them to put their coffers to work on drawing the majority share of users. Then they will extend: they will make sure their platform is compatible with ingesting other server content but others will be unable to federate their content (they will become "incompatible" later, due to "features"). Then they will extinguish competition: they'll cut off what little engagement is left with those (inbound only) federated servers because they no longer need them and the majority of the remaining users will move to their platform because that is where the activity is.
Then Kbin/lemmy will be just like all the other random phpbb instances that no one really uses. Being naive won't make things any less likely, yet there will always be gullible people who argue that "of course they will embrace the technology" and that everything else is just non-sense/wouldn't have worked anyway/blah.
It doesn't take long for the largest servers to have operating costs that they will happily allow Meta to burden in exchange for nearly any concession. The main problem is that, while Kbin/Lemmy is federated, it is federated in a manner that still places content in silos and allows single servers to "own" those spaces. It hasn't really fixed the problem yet, it just spreads the problem out over a few more servers. Until spaces are universal (every server owns a slice of that community, spreading out the community instead of just the users), it will remain ripe for EEE.
Completely agreed on the concept of needing to federate out entire spaces (magazines / communities) - this is a huge gap currently, especially on kbin where nearly every community (and nearly every user) is on @kbin.social .
My thought is that Lemmy and kbin, after fixing and updating core functionality (easier said than done), need to jump on the idea of instances having magazines/communities that pull from multiple other sources, rather than federating each community independently - e.g. I could have an @android which is pulling from @android , @android , etc, and the experience is relatively seamless - if someone drops out, yes we lose a lot of content, but others pick up the slack.
This would require more overhead from admins and instance owners to manage which other communities their own communities are pulling from, but I think it would be worthwhile for a better overall user experience and to help decentralize these communities in general.
I can't edit and have my edits federated out (edits federate if someone is following you, not if you are following them) so I want to point out that those links are somehow pointing to users instead of communities, whoops. I was referring to e.g. https://the.coolest.zone/m/android being a collection including contents on that magazine, contents from https://kbin.social/m/android , contents from https://lemmy.world/c/android , etc.
... so I could host an instance with a magazine that is essentially a digest of federated instances, and I can add/remove based on whatever aligns with my principles?
I don't think I have that right, sorry but if you could explain it a little differently, I'm still trying to understand how the fediverse is.
So, as an example. I am on the.coolest.zone which is where my account is registered. I have a magazine on it called fediverse@kbin.social, which is where I am viewing this thread. In fact, you will be able to view it here: https://the.coolest.zone/m/fediverse@kbin.social
I have only three actual magazines on my own instance - random (this is necessary for all kbin instances to collect uncategorized posts), BestOfBlind, and Android (which was my attempt to create a magazine that collects threads based on hashtag, but it's not working right). Everything else is a magazine which is actually a federated version of either a kbin magazine from another kbin community or a Lemmy community from a Lemmy instance.
The couple of things that seem to be missing or broken right now:
As stated, trying to get a magazine going based on hashtag does not seem to be working.
There's no way to collect up multiple communities into one, so I have separate magazines for android (kbin.social) and android (lemmy.world). That's a little annoying!
As far as I can tell, you can't delete a magazine yet. If I federate a magazine / community and decide I actually don't want it on my instance anymore (or I created m/android to test the hashtag and found it doesn't work right), tough luck it seems - I'm stuck with it.
Hosting costs - Of my 80GB VPS, I appear to have used about 60GB so far just in federating other content to me. This is going to become a problem within this week! I don't know what to do about that or whether there's a way to prune old content or what! (I don't want to re-host everyone's memes, as dank as they are!)
kbin and Lemmy are both very new applications, so these will likely shake themselves out over time, but it's a bit of a rough experience right now. 😅
especially on kbin where nearly every community (and nearly every user) is on @kbin.social .
But kbin.social is fully compatible with Lemmy with almost the same number of users and many more communities (dozen of them has more subscribers than most-subscribed /kbin magazine). Maybe /kbin as a platform is much centralised. Threadiverse, not so much.
as a community, we put our foot down with Meta and say “no, this is our house. If you don’t adapt to us, we don’t federate with you. If you deviate from the ActivityPub protocol or our other implementations that we do above the ActivityPub protocol (things like boosts/upvotes/downvotes standards as agreed upon by Lemmy/kbin, for example), you will break federation with us, and we will be okay with that.”
I'm afraid we will lose if we accept them until they do something bad. Given their track record, that's just a matter of time. If we let them become important to the fediverse as long as they play nice, the final decision could be disastrous for the fediverse when they stop playing nice.
So the right thing to say seems for me: "No, this is our house. We don’t federate with you."
That is a completely valid take here. My partner who runs our Mastodon instance will be preemptively defederating with Threads (on my suggestion), so I do agree with you, but I realize not everyone in the Fediverse may share that take - it's a weighted scale where one end is "mass adoption of a Web 3.0 decentralized Fediverse" and the other end is "but adoption in which most people are on Threads will be centralization anyway, so we will have already failed."
I think in any case it may not matter, as I believe Meta / Threads will only federate with instances that agree to follow their moderation standards - after all, Meta likely doesn't want porn and Nazis federated to their communities because then they can't run advertisements. As a Fediverse community, we're pretty good at taking care of the Nazi thing, but Mastodon's got an awful lot of porn on it.
It will really depend on which admins take that deal to be beholden to Meta's standards, potentially opening themselves up not only to huge moderation concerns but to a future requirement of taking advertisements. I hope large instances will not. I would prefer to see the Fediverse operate separate from Threads, who will be using the ActivityPub protocol but not part of the larger Fediverse. Similar to how the conservative "truth.social" uses the Mastodon application and ActivityPub but is not part of the Fediverse because it is closed off.
A little off topic, but I was very surprised Reddit didn't pursue a similar approach of "we will lower greatly the costs of API but we will serve advertisements in the API as regular posts, so you must display them and can't strip them out."
I agree with OP's title on the social side of the problem, not the technical one. If we allow them to destroy the Fediverse, then it was already lost to begin with. It's not a matter of technology, it's a matter of whether the key people are able to keep it out of the corporate control in the long run. If they can't, then it was all just a matter of time.
EDIT: I don't imply it's a particularly useful thought. It might help with coping though if it would ever happen. Let's enjoy it while it lasts and hope for the best!
Hard disagree with to see sentiment that people who use the fediverse want freedom, alot of the people I see on here instead look for choice. 'Freedom' may be a side effect of that, so is many of the positives of choice.
The idea of 'freedom' is inheritly flawed if your relying on someone else.
I have many accounts with instances I trust, and my own instances.
That is choice, not freedom.
To have 'freedom' on the internet means a P2P model where everyone directly communicates with each other.
Some of y'all getting angry need to look at yourself in the mirror. The whole point of federation was to allow communities to do things like this if they want.
A lot of new people are going to see this mudslinging and rightfully turn around. Nobody is coming to Lemmy to see drama between instances.
I mean some people absolutely do love and feed on drama, but is that who we want to attract? They're not the nicest bunch to have around in my experience.
exactly this; the whole point was so instances could pick and choose who they wanted to interact with
I'd always heard that federation was good because if you get an instance infested with fascists, you (and everyone else who doesn't want anything to do with them) can just cut that instance loose and let it drift away
I thought the whole point of federation was that everything from every federated instance was connected and I only need one account to see every part of it. The fact that federation has been the only discussion since the blackout is not good for the alternatives to reddit. My whole life is tech and if it's this distracting to me I can't imagine any remotely average user being interested. The fact that this was the perfect time to be part of an alternative but the whole experience has mostly just proven reddits "give it a week" response true.
kbin is only live a month or so.... of course there will be problems and missing moderation tools - it wont be much better for lemmy.
There is no perfect time - some people will stay some will go back to reddit witout any change. thats a user thing not the fault of beehaw or the federation of servers.
I thought the whole point of federation was that everything from every federated instance was connected and I only need one account to see every part of it.
That was never going to happen, not even in the best possible case.
Far left and far right are always going to split off. Do you want to be having discussions about race with neo nazis? I don't. Let them go to their own dark corner of the internet.
I thought the whole point of federation was that everything from every federated instance was connected and I only need one account to see every part of it.
No. If an instance hosts toxic communities then your instance can choose to defederate from it. You don't have to wait for the centralized authority to ban them. It's about being able to choose your admins and form a web of "good" communities.
I think what I’m still trying to learn and adjust to (having come from Reddit) is how it’s different in terms of filtering out certain subs you wouldn’t want to see there. Like I don’t want to subscribe to conservative I can just not do so or filter it out, whereas this feels like whoever runs beehaw is choosing what communities we can interact with? Or is Beehaw itself and the communities contained within similar to Reddit?
Essentially what I’m looking for is something more akin to the forums of old with entertainment, tech and less toxic news. Decent communities to discuss subjects on while still keeping up to date on things.
I'd also like a way to filter out certain communities, I'm sure that's already on the todo list.
And yes, the 4 people who run Beehaw are choosing what communities you can interact with by defederating other instances, this means people from those instances can't comment on beehaw and you won't see posts from them.
Reddit admins did something similar when they banned subreddits, except the difference is that on lemmy if you liked those banned communities then you could create an account on their instance and continue participating in those communities.
The idea is for instance admins to curate an experience for their users by choosing which instances they federate with. That's why beehaw has defederated from around 200 instances https://beehaw.org/instances while my instance has defederated from 4 https://partizle.com/instances
I do think it's fair to criticize the decision to try to be one of the largest instances while only having four moderators. They should have accepted a place as a midsize instance with midsize communities in order to maintain their moderation goals. Or they could have worked to get more moderators. Blaming the defederated instances and mod tools seem disingenuous at best. That said mod tools undoubtedly need improvement.
To be fair, they said the reason they were defederating from those two instances in particular is because most of their moderation involved people from them. They didn't expand beehaw beyond what they could handle, the rest of lemmy expanded beyond what they could handle. If this really is just a temporary measure, which is also what they said, then I think it's pretty reasonable.
That's because they defederated from the two largest competing instances. I'm talking about the communities users not the instances. The issue is that beehaw has the largest and therefore defacto default communities. The timing is bad and will likely affect wider adoption. The biggest problem is that it is entirely foreseeable and solved by either accepting a smaller community (closing signups) or improving moderation capabilities (getting more moderators or investing in an alternative moderation system) before it meant splitting the threadiverse in half.
I'm not denying that it sucks, but if you'd told anybody this was going to happen a month ago they'd have just laughed at you. Of course they were unprepared. Everbody has more than they can deal with. Adding more mods isn't as simple as picking some names out of a hat, and this isn't a thing anyone was preparing for. There currently are no alternative moderation systems, everything is too new and until recently was all way to small for that to be important, and they just have more work then they can deal with trying to suddenly moderate all of the threadiverse.
This was a bad option that sucked, but every option was a bad option that sucked. I'm more concerned with how they deal with things as they normalize over the coming weeks and months than I am with how they're trying to put out the fires in the short term.
But they chose a nonstandard moderation strategy that limited their ability to scale moderation with users. The default system is that communities are moderated independently of admins (not saying admins don't form communities or that there's no overlap between admins and mods) whereas on beehaw only the admins can create communities and therefore are the primary moderators.
Now I'm not saying that there's anything inherently wrong with the system they've chosen but the fact that it is nonstandard and in fact built into the core precept of beehaw means that this was easily foreseen.
Easily forseen if you knew that lemmy was suddenly going to have a hundred times as many users in the space of a couple weeks. That was the thing no one was prepared for though.
lemmy.ml has a completely different idea of how it wants to be run. That happens to have been hurt a lot less by a sudden massive influx of new users, but that wasn't the reason it was different. What do you even think beehaw could have done that would have better given their goals?
The admins have always been clear that they’re not trying to replace Reddit, and I’m quite sure they were not trying to be one of the largest instances.
If they weren’t trying to get large then how did that happen? Based on admin comments, beehaw was one of the more active instances when the first wave of migration happened; and a decent amount of the pre-first wave posts about lemmy I saw on Reddit were about how Beehaw was a good instance to join as it was defederated from lemmygrad.
I'm not saying this has anything to do with replacing reddit but it is bad for the larger threadiverse community. Notably there were several other instances that closed registration for the purposes of not growing quicker than they could handle long term (see lemmy.ml). Beehaw has most of the largest (and therefore defacto default) communities. Active steps to avoid that would have allowed them to maintain their moderation goals while growing in an organic and sustainable way that benefits the larger threadiverse community.
I was strictly replying to the part of your comment where you said they made a decision to try to be one of the largest instances – imo they did not make a explicit decision to try to be that, but rather the growth was a side effect of the circumstances around reddit users checking out the fediverse.
Is closing registrations is better than having an application with questions that weed out low-effort users? IMO it’s probably a wash. beehaw has only banned one user from the local instance that I know of, so the application process seems to be working overall. The issue is that other instances are growing too quickly and needing to moderate those users, not their own.
I do agree this isn’t great for the threadiverse and I wish it hadn’t come to this, both on a personal and community level. I was subbed to the knitting community on lemmy.world, it was the most active of those communities that I saw, and now I’m locked out. Idk if I want to move to an alt on a different instance, or self-host my own so that I’m fully in control of what I can see, or what. :S
No the issue is that four moderators for the whole instance was always unsustainable and allowing the communities to become the defacto defaults without growing the mod teams was a bad idea. This was easily foreseen and corrected. Blaming other instances is not at all fair.
you do not understand the problem. The growth was on every server of the fedivers - so moderationg users from different servers was to much work. how should they stop people from other servers? two options - block any individuell(which is to much work with so many open registration servers - they can just spamm new servers) or nuke the server where most of the trolls come from.
I DO understand the problem. They only have an issue with an influx of users because they are the largest (defacto default) communities. A position that was incompatible with their moderation system from the get go. Had they had more sustainably sized communities none of this would have been an issue.
The moderated, reasonable stance is that everyone is right! Beehaw probably could have done things differently, including making a stickied post that they don’t want to be the default large instance, and/or acquired a lot more mods to manage the federation of other large instances. On the other hand, Lemmy doesn’t have the same principles as Beehaw and prioritized the growth of their userbase over a filtering system. To you it looks like one is worse than the other, that’s because you want to see content from everywhere and don’t share the principles of the other federation - so you’re probably not a good fit for Beehaw atm (and if anyone is blindsided, I don’t get it.. I could see it written all over Beehaw that they are trying to promote certain principles over growth, I don’t share in those principles but I can respect that they were direct about it).
Everyone on the Fediverse should expect to see instances un/re-federate several times over especially in the growing stages. The critique is fine but it should definitely be tempered with reasonable expectations and not unnecessary ridicule.
The idea that people are missing content on Lemmy/Beehaw/Kbin instances that get defederated are looking at this from a “this should be super convenient” mentality which, convenience is why Reddit expects you’ll go back. Quality of content, genuine community-building, and/or responsible upper management doesn’t have as much value there, it is inherent in them being a VC, convenience is what matters most on Reddit/TikTok/Twitter/etc.
On the Fediverse, the one thing that should be said more is that the instance you join, you should prepare to be involved locally through that instance more than anything else. The idea you can or should just join anywhere was something I wrong wrong about, as was much of the Reddit people saying “join Lemmy it doesn’t matter where, it’s all federated.” I don’t blame them or myself, it’s a newer concept and nuance is lost at the entry- level to anything. If people were coming to the Fediverse for fully federated, more convenient content than they should try Mastadon, because they’re farther along and had their own issues to deal with during the Twitter migration that propelled them much like these instances that are still growing and learning will, in time.
That's not necessarily true. There's both approaches at work here, one is the "themed community" one, and the other is the "universal citizen" one. That user/forum migration has not been implemented from the beginning (but it will hopefully asap), speaks rather more about the mindset of the developers. I myself would find it an absolute no-go if i would be participating in the technical desigh of a social server network, if servers were to own users and communities. That would lead to the exact same problems as corporate sites pose -- they are governed by people with specific mindsets, and that is to be avoided.
You have largely missed the mark on my motivations for posting and familiarity with the fediverse. Ultimately, this is an issue of responsible community building. As it stands the beehaw communities are the only ones with subscriber counts over 10k. There is absolutely no way new users will not end up there without the larger threadiverse community making an active effort to phase out the beehaw communities in favor of more open ones and if that does not happen the same four admins will continue to have an outsized effect on the network. This is bad for everyone.
Meta has shown repeatedly that they aren't trustworthy. This is like watching a wolf eat every one of your chickens in the coop and then swearing up and down that if you let it in the hen house, it won't touch the chickens in there. Absolutely zero chance that they aren't going to try to take over and steal data and control it. Why else are they trying to come in? These corporations don't make moves like this unless they see a potential profit. I vote block.
I can't imagine that meta aren't already collecting fediverse data. It's an existential threat to their business model and the data is comparatively easy to harvest. I'll bet their internal user model already has records for which federated services a facebook user also uses. There's not a lot of privacy here!
Bingo. If Meta get their foot in the door, then the writing will be on the wall and the Fediverse as we know it today will slowly disappear. These huge corporations have extremely covert and efficient methods of influencing change and instilling their evil values which aren't fully-apparent until it's already too late.
If Meta get involved, personally, I'll be leaving, and will just accept that the internet will never again be allowed to exist in a free state; the system won.
EDIT: I also left all social media over two years ago, and this was largely because Facebook was making me remarkably unhappy and angry. I don't want them in my life full stop and have gone out of my way to rid my digital identity of any ties to corporate proprietary bullshit. I like it here precisely because it has no corporate overlord, and it makes me sick to think that Meta can just waltz back into my life in a space users largely want to be left alone in.
Big companies are driven by profit and power. I don't expect us to keep them out but it would be nice to prevent them from becoming the default, or else we'll just repeat the same thing over again
Multiple smaller communities connected together is the best strategy for a free internet IMO
This is utterly baffling and goes against the whole idea of the Fediverse. To take advantage of the impending mass migration, just days before Reddit shuts down their universal API access for good, this all leaves a very bad taste in my mouth.
So users now have to choose between two already-smaller communities when making the transition? This is only going to make a semi-complicated process even more confusing, and end up pushing users back to Reddit.
I had mostly used Lemmy.ml up to this point, but I didn’t leave Reddit to join another u/spez dictatorship. What a disappointing turn of events. Kbin is now my primary.
I'm not sure how much you know about networking or HTTP, but from the evidence posted, this very much is not the kind of thing that just accidentally happens.
I don't think it's a case of a personal ego here. I think it's something different, that has to go with the main devs' ideology. I feel like @feditips 's concerns are quite valid.
Presuming for the sake of argument that it's a deliberate move by .ml to freeze out kbin users, it only really goes against the idea of the fediverse in that it's an underhanded way to accomplish something that was meant to be done openly. By design, every instance is entirely free to choose whether or not to federate with any other.
What a disappointing turn of events. Kbin is now my primary.
And (again presuming for the sake of argument that it's not simply a glitch), that's the fediverse working exactly as intended. Just as every instance is free to choose which instances to federate with, every user is free to choose which instances to join or follow.
There is no evidence whatsoever that this is intentional, so it's odd to see everyone in this thread getting on their high horse.
All the evidence points to it being one of the many server sync issues that we've seen occur in the last month rather than being some kind of shadowy conspiracy.
No other Lemmy instance is doing this, and it's specifically for HTTP requests with a user agent that contains the string "kbinbot". It isn't a server sync issue, because again, it's HTTP requests, of any kind. You can verify this yourself using curl, for crying out loud.
True, but the original intent was that defederation would be a nuclear option, reserved only for instances that totally failed to moderate stuff like hate speech, bot activity, etc-- given that it damages the Fediverse as a whole.
The lemmy.ml admins are free to federate or defederate from other instances as they please-- and we're free to criticize their decision as we please, too.
What a weird thing to keep defending in multiple threads. I don’t want to see hate speech. It provides no actual value to any open forum. Most users don’t want to see it at all either, from what I’ve seen. This isn’t 4chan.
I’m not sure this blog post is the “ah-ha!” revelation you think it is.
If you’re posting something, you’re choosing to put that out there on the public internet which should henceforth be considered “public.” This isn’t a privacy violation unless you choose to make it one by violating your own privacy by oversharing sensitive information.
This has been the case online since time immemorial. Once something’s out there, consider it non-retractable. This isn’t specific to the Fediverse/ActivityPub. Even in centralized forums/reddit the things you post were cached by web archive/scraped by unscrupulous sites/used to train AI, etc. even if you tried to delete them from the source server. “Deletion” has never truly been a thing on the internet, which is precisely why people should really consider what they post. Heck, there were specific sites dedicated to showing which comments were “deleted” from reddit in full.
I don’t consider any of these things “privacy violations.” A privacy violation would be if the email address you signed up to your instance with was being broadcast to other servers in the open. What you choose to put out there is up to you and the inherent danger with interacting with any form of social media.
The core issue is not the technology imho. It’s the people : their rampant narcissism that has become the new norm since facebook, and the urge to always post useless crap about themselve everywhere, then suprise-pokemoning when they realise it may not have been the brightest of ideas.
Maybe you didn’t read where it says even DIRECT MESSAGES aka private messages you send to people, and don’t choose to post in public, is easily and easily available.
This place is already an echo chamber. Jesus that’s bad. Everyone is on a new team and now we love this team and this team is never wrong and all criticisms are invalid. Even the really bad ones.
I don’t really care. I’m old enough to have never trusted the internet. But let’s not pretend this isn’t a huge fucking deal, and isn’t completely fucked just because Reddit bad and fediverse good
Huh funny how a direct message is not a private message, almost like they’re even called completely different things.
Everything is public here, some stupid Euro anti-user ideals on privacy aren’t the be all and end all .
Things put in public are public. There is no privacy concern because there has never any privacy, nor will there ever be any privacy to be concerned about in a non-private platform such as this.
Yes. DMs on Twitter are Direct Messages and are supposed to be private messages send to someone else that no one else can see (except server admins, et al, as we are talking about here). If you send a DM to someone on Twitter or whatever social media (they use DMs to mean private messages on Instagram as well) it’s not on the public feed, no one can search it. Like having a text message conversation
"Direct Message" and "Private Message" indeed mean different things. In practice, because both involve messaging one individual user, a good deal of people (including myself) still expect them to be functionally the same. Part of this functionality we expect is that there is an attempt to make these messages less visible and easy to access than the reply I just sent to you right now. This expectation is validated on Twitter:
Direct Messages are the private side of Twitter. You can use Direct Messages to have private conversations with people about Tweets and other content.
a private message sent on a social media website, that only the person it is sent to can see
and by the fact that if you go on anyone's profile, you can see post history, comment history, and boosts, but not a list of who they tried to send an individual message to or what those messages were. I believe that more technical people could retrieve such messages, that the messages are not totally secure, but to my layman eyes, I do still expect that there was at least an attempt to make these messages private.
Even on traditional centralized platforms I’ve never treated DMs as “private.” Anything not end-to-end encrypted cannot be considered private and never has been able to be. Once again, these aren’t exclusive issues to the Fediverse.
With that said, I do see it as important to draw attention to these types of things. Users should absolutely know not to share sensitive information via DM, or make the mistake of considering them a secure medium on any platform, centralized or not.
Of course you can have encrypted group chats on Signal, if you're not concerned about meta data. Or xmpp group chats with encryption if you want decentralization. You can keep your secret stuff secret and your public stuff public simply by using different apps.
And if other instance owners have access to the private messages of people on every instance, that is a shockingly large flaw. I’m not exactly sure how insecure private messaging would be here. Not that I have people to message. But it being centralized would be more secure if decentralization would allow a much larger number of people to have access to something that, really, should be private.
There are an overwhelming number of people I don’t think are savvy or cynical enough, call it what you will, to understand that just because they call something a private message - or just because it’s supposed to be a one to one interaction - doesn’t mean no one else can see it. I would think, if anything, an overwhelming majority of people who send a private message/DM on a social media assume that no one else at ALL has access to that information.
That visualization shows exactly why the whole thing here is overwhelming for the average user. I feel that the federated aspect should be less focused on when talking about the fediverse. It makes sense to explain it, but many explanations on how to switch to lemmy/kbin/whatever put the whole federation thing on top of the list. I think this is a big turnoff for casual users/lurkers. They do not understand that they don't need to understand the structure of the fediverse to join, enjoy content and engage with others, so they don't even start.
I'm sure a visualization could help with that, but having a bunch of boxes and circles with arrows all over the place isn't exactly something that will mitigate the feeling of being overloaded with information. I'm not saying you didn't do a great job. "Arrows all over the place" is not meant to devaluate your work, on the contrary, it perfectly captures the feeling i have about the fediverse, but I would not use that image as an ad for it.
Agree completely. The average user doesn't need to know any of this, at least not like right away. Just join on kbin.social like you would on Reddit and start using the site.
What I've been doing during switching, so far so good with kbin. A bit under polished, but otherwise a great solution, esp with being both a Twitter+reddit alt. Looking forward to seeing it's further development
its not that simple. If for example you want to join m/technology and the community in your own instance is empty, a new user will think that there are not users/traffic. You need to explain them somehow that the m/technology@another-instance is different community even though that they share kind of the same name (first part of the name).
kind of agree. I cannot think of any way that this could be overcome. Something like having "default" communities but then this breaks the federalization. Where would this community be hosted and does this mean that there is a central entity? But still need at least a better search where one can easier discover communities from other instances. It is very tricky indeed
Thing is, people should also be able to join beehaw.org or other Lemmy or Kbin based sites and have basically the same experience with the same content. And they should be encouraged to do so, because having everyone on one server is unnecessary, likd of awful for the server admin, and also kind of generally bad for the ecosystem as a whole.
But once you tell people that, they start asking questions about how that's possible, and, well...
People understand the idea of a "Client/Server" relationship intuitively, even if they don't know what HTTP is: "this website is the server, and I am the client. I ask it for info, and it gives it to me."
Fediverse asks its users to extend that knowledge with the "Server/Server" relationship that underpins ActivityPub, kbin, Lemmy, Mastodon, etc. It's a new, unfamiliar relationship without a clear real world analogy, so that begs lots of questions, and the instinct is to be helpful and welcoming and answer those questions. These are good intentions mind you! But it's complicated, and that will limit adoption as users self-select and find something else "more their speed."
I'm optimistic though. The Client/Server relationship of the internet was once new and unfamiliar to users. I think with time (maybe a lot of time, maybe not) people will figure it out.
The problem is that the user is necessarily confronted with the technical design of the fediverse from the moment they create an account. "Do I join lemmy.ml or lemmy.world or mastodon.social or kbin.social" can only really be answered by explaining how the fediverse works, because the simple answer is "it doesn't really matter but it also sort of does", which is profoundly unhelpful
The absolute best way to explain the fediverse is to not.
When I wrote a short guide to getting started on Mastodon I made deliberate efforts to completely ignore the technical side. The instance stuff does not need explaining. Nobody cares about that. They want to know how to find people to talk to on this Mastodon thing they heard about.
Nobody will tell you to try some chocolate by explaining the entire supply chain for all the ingredients that went into it. They say "try this delicious chocolate bar!" or words to that effect.
If you can't think of a USP for fedi that doesn't revolve around obscure technical details that most people do not and will never give a shit about, and that honestlly are kind of awkward to explain and sometimes even defend, well... I'd suggest going away and trying again.
And people showed up on Mastodon, ignored how it all worked, complained that they couldn't find what they were looking for, refused to listen about how they could find it, and then fucked off.
Some rally basic level of understanding is helpful. Like the idea that "Mastodon" or "kbin" is not a single place, and that there are consequences to that that make things different here from centralized services.
Hmm, you are right with that. Maybe the focus shouldn't be on describing the underlying infrastructure before people join, but right after? So they have at least seen the building from inside before leaving again?
This is a good idea. I joined Mastadon with the influx last November, got confused and didn't return until the current Reddit debacle. I'm trying harder now to understand, but what would have helped was 1) a simple guide to getting logged in and 2) finding content and 3) being able to view it and reply (including understanding if I was supposed to use hashtags, etc.). Get someone started with a short list of popular communities/magazines, THEN show them how to branch out. #trainingwheels
No offense taken lol. I share many of your concerns about the viability of mass adoption of a complex system. The average user is not a computer scientist, and we can't expect them to have the time or patience to learn all this stuff: it needs to be intuitive and user friendly.
I think the Fediverse can get there, if not today, soon.
They do not understand that they don't need to understand the structure of the fediverse to join, enjoy content and engage with others, so they don't even start.
I think this is the biggest issue. People get so worried about how it works that they don't even try it out and get to see that it's actually pretty simple and works pretty much the same as reddit
true. I am literate in internet/computer yet the idea in general is still confusing. Navigating is also abit jarring, and I dont understand some buttons and features like “boost”. It would be great for beginners to include a tutorial for navigating the UI and a short introduction of the fediverse in #teachmelikeim5 level
I just wish boosting had a confirmation or a way to undo/delete (not sure if the Fediverse/ActivityPub supports this). My itchy Reddit migrant fingers have accidentally boosted several posts just because my monkey brain goes "ooh, large number" at this point :P
The stuff you already boosted have a line under the boost button. You can take your boost back by hitting that again. It doesn't delete it from your followers' feeds obviously but it makes it easier for it to be overtaken by something that's boosted more.
AFAIK, boosts are only used to rank posts on kbin. Lemmy uses upvotes for that.
Boosts are necessary because they re-publish content to the group, and that pushes it out to people who subscribed to the group after the content was originally posted
My understanding is that a "boost" is like a re-tweet or a "share". it reposts the content to boost visibility. whereas upvotes are like reddit upvotes or "likes".
“i am an instance admin/mod on the fediverse. by signing this pact, i hereby agree to block any instances owned by meta should they pop up on the fediverse. project92 is a real and serious threat to the health and longevity of fedi and must be fought back against at every possible opportunity”
Meta won't federate anyone. They don't want to host illegal content on their servers, that would be an absolute PR disaster for them. And this is what will happen if they federate with a random instance. Even clean instances will want to play tricks on Meta if federated.
They are the prototype of the mono instance federation. They want control. They want to attract the people leaving Twitter. I don't think they care about us, what they want to avoid is that our instances become too big and start to offer an alternative.
I have my skepticisms about this whole thing. While I know the answer is "they will be defederated", what if one of the big ones, like lemmy.world or lemmy.ml get huge, then sell out to something like Meta?
We lost 3rd party apps and we are mourning the biggest breakup we've ever had with reddit. Say the server you've had your account on for so long and all your content gets taken over by a giant with strategically placed adds that are upvoted by bot armies for visibility. They may get defederated, but that means Meta just came in and destroyed a huge chunk of users accounts while gaining some ad revenue for a bit until the community dies. Everyone has to actively pack up their shit and move to another instance. I guess the loyalty to an account is less with a lack of account karma so it wouldn't burn as bad.
You would lose all your subscribed communities when you are forced to move out. That would suck. Too bad you couldn't export like a .db file from your account on the way out and upload it to another account on another instance. Possibly some sort of encrypted key so you can auto add as a mod to any community you were modding on your previous account. No clue if that makes any sense. Kinda Like a lemmy "Go-Bag"?
I don't know, just thinking ahead of the shenanigans that's going to happen if this really starts making a dent in huge corporations user counts.
Edit: I know there is likely no way to ever be able to move your content or comments. The logistics of remapping all of that to another account is likely impossible. Not sure how it works on the backend, but I'm pretty sure your home instance keeps track of your profiles history from your perspective, and all the instances you comment or post on only have record of where it came from. i.e. your username@instance, if your home instance where your profile is gets defederated, the only record of your existence is your scattered posts throughout the fediverse. And scanning the whole fediverse for your content from a new account you set up would be impossible. Even if your instance is not defederated and you just want to move it would still take editing the posting username to your new username on every comment you made. I guess that would be possible, but content is going to come and go as instances come and go anyways. It just is what it is, that is the downside of decentralization.
I wonder how it does work on the backend? Does your profile on your home instance save a copy of all of your content across the fediverse? Or does it just save the address to the post? If an instance you posted on dissappears, does any evidence of it exist in your post history? Or does it dissappear?
I wonder if there could be a universal subscribed communities + followed users data format people could export before they move instances. Hard part would be getting everyone to use it
I think in the long run, the descendent of ActivityPub will look kind of like Freenet, where the content is completely dissociated from the node from which it was posted and instead propagates across nodes mirrored in proportion to popularity. (Obviously a social media protocol would be very different from Freenet in terms of things like ownership/attribution and moderation of content, of course.)
I don't think lemmy as a whole can be sold out to Facebook since it's open source, right? (Also why it's not a total dealbreaker for me that the original devs are tankies, since they won't be profiting off us using it.)
I don’t think lemmy as a whole can be sold out to Facebook since it’s open source, right?
Yes, but lemmy is even more resilient. It is licensed as AGPL-3.0.
That is a copyleft license which requires anyone using the code publicly (e.g. to run a proprietary server) to make their code public and permit free usage of it. And they must not change the license.
I don't see the point of buying something which is already freely available to everybody, especially since you are not allowed to hide it, even partially, or modify the free nature of it.
What could more reasonably be sold is data, visibility and userbase (big, active instances).
I wonder if it would make sense to use PGP keys to link accounts so you could tell it’s the same user even if they make an account on a different server. It could be used to verify users so they could remain a mod for all their existing communities as well as confirm they are the same person.
Maybe there'll be a standard for threadiverse that each software like Lemmy and Kbin will eventually follow. A standard that lets us migrate from Lemmy to Kbin and others easily. Then, if at some point some software becomes GPL-licensed, we don't have to be worried about software overtake like MS did with Minecraft.
Popular pieces of software that's part of the fediverse usually give you either:
Export options - manual export options intended for GDPR-Compliance and peace of mind
Account Move options - Mastodon is best known for this, as you can migrate your profile (but not your posts and followers) to another instance. Anyone which then visits your old page will have it blurred out, linking to your new one.
#2 could be expanded in the case of Kbin and Lemmy to also include subscribed communities/magazines, settings and some other things where Federation allows for it.
Search indexing is also a huge problem. While it's possible to create a search index over all content local to a given server, maintaining an index over all content on all servers that you federate is a much bigger issue. And that's before we get to the problem of migrating associated content when a profile moves from one server to another.
Same here. My domain name and email address will turn 30 next March. I've been doing this since the days when Usenet posts were transmitted across sites using UUCP.
We will always find the next place. Reddit has peaked and is destroying itself and it's time to move on.
Yeah, a lot of these concerns strike me as coming from people who don't remember the time before the big, centralized media sites. Hopping from forum to forum, making new friends and learning new things along the way, is all part of the adventure.
Mastondon does allow you to export your profiles and set them up on a different instance; I reckon some folks will figure out a solution on how to easily jump ship.
This is one of the biggest things I think Lemmy needs. You should be able to create a backup of your profile and export/import it into another instance. That way if something happens or you have a problem with the instance admins you can migrate with no loss or minimal loss to your account.
Yep, the devs have said it's on the radar, but will probably be a while. Not too many contributors and their priority is to work on stability and bug fixes first
i'll be honest hearing lemmy while being on kbin threw me into a loop, made me wonder if i was in a lemmy community and not a kbin magazine lmao. i gotta get used to this.
But yeah, both Lemmy and Kbin need the same flexibility of Mastodon. The more easily one can move, the less likely megacorps will see value in gobbling up instances. Long-term goal might be cross-platform profile compatibility, but right now that's a pipe dream.
For Kbin, you might want to check out the @kbinStyles magazine. Folks are creating tweaks for Kbin in the meantime that improve functionality like this :)
Oh I know how the Fediverse works, I was just commenting on how sometimes I have to question which instance the post is hosted on. For example, I see you're on lemmy.world.
I think one limiting factor that has yet to be addressed is that you can move your profile, but you can't move your content. Another is identity. How do you know which Mastodon server has an authoritative (i.e. "blue-check") profile for a given person/entity?
edit: Search indexing is also a huge problem. While it's possible to create a search index over all content local to a given server, maintaining an index over all content on all servers that you federate is a much bigger problem.
Again, it's just like email. Anyone can set up an email address with any yourname@whatever. If you really want an identity then you can eg, publish pgp keys. Presumably at some point we'll have a way of signing posts/accounts.
This was my thought too. Migrating an identity is one thing. What does your content even mean? All posts, comments, and votes? They wouldn't make sense without context of the thread. That's an awful lot of data because it's not yours alone. Just think about migrating entire communities and their history. That's a lot of duplication! Please elucidate me if I'm misinformed.
I guess for the privacy conscious and content creators, one solution of this would be to host your own instance just for yourself. You control the domain and what's hosted. I could setup @thorned@rose.social and store my content on my server. In much the same vein as custom emails - hello@rose.social could be my email (technically I could have thorned@rose.social but that could be confusing with only a dropped @ but anyways).
Obviously this is not going to be a solution for everyone and it would be good to have a way to backup your content and be able to move it between servers. But in the mean time, it's a workable solution for those who find it important enough to go down that route. 🤷🏻♀️
I guess for the privacy conscious and content creators, one solution of this would be to host your own instance just for yourself.
That's exactly what I did. Have it running in docker containers at a VPS provider for $5/month and ship backups off to Backblaze nightly.
Never have to worry about my "home" instance dying/suddenly disappearing or defederating other instances. I like to self-host when it makes sense to, and this is definitely a situation where it makes sense.
Mastodon has the seeds of this authority in that you can put links on your profile and then have them flagged by putting code on the website. So my Mastodon account could have a link to kazuyadarklightofficial.com and the flag proves I own/control that site. So if you know/can determine that site is THE KazuyaDarklight site, then you know you have the right Mastodon account.
Wow that’s actually an incredibly clever way to go about handling verification. But does this add a check mark to the users account ie twitter? Or does it just add a little note confirming the ownership of the linked site? Could I in theory just make a website, set up the flag, and be “verified”? Or is there more too it than that?
I feel there will at some point be a "this is why we can't have nice things" moment with ActivityPub and Federation in general.
Karma is probably pretty easy to farm using fake home servers or botted accounts, and other kinds spam is probably going to be an issue if this platform reaches any level of mainstream popularity.
I think many parallels can be drawn between ActivityPub and E-mail, here. E-mail works, but not without a lot of gatekeeping, blocking and spam. Its really hard not to get blocked as a self hosted email server today, you are probably going to be mostly blocked by default until you build somewhat of a reputation for your server, etc. I foresee similar levels of maintenance being needed in the future in order to keep servers federated.
As far as moving your account, some things are easier than others to deal with. Things such as subscriptions and likes is probably a lot easier to move to a new account than entire post histories and such.
That's why we need to decentralize. If there's 100 communities over 50 servers, then it doesn't matter which website goes down or defederates. It's only if everyone stays on one or two instances that the fediverse breaks.
Over on mastodon, big instances have gone down, people notice but it isnt the end of the world.
I mean I can't be the only one who doesn't enjoy the idea of setting up a new account if the ship you picked in the beginning sinks a few years later. You make it sound so simple but at least to me it would be a huge drag.
Why? It literally takes 2 minutes and you shouldn't spend extended amounts of time on a single account anyways for security reasons. Especially with AI on the rise. No one should have account that is a year old - that's enough data to dox almost anybody given proper research.
This is why having frictionless one-button migration seems really important to me. Imagine that your Lemmy client keeps a constant backup of your profile so that if and when your instance go down, you can set up shop somewhere else super easily. Or when an instance get too big, or when you feel like it, you can instance-hop super simply. This is the future I'd want. You control your profile, noone else.
Honestly, this isn't even necessary. The only thing that needs to be implemented is federated authentication, because then you could log in to any instance with one set of credentials. Since the content you post/comment is already replicated locally on other instances, you wouldn't even need to import/export anything, it would already exist on the other instances.
Implement federated user authentication and you're golden.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding (and that's certainly a possibility because I've been on Lemmy for barely a week), but wouldn't the profile be rebuildable since the content generated by the user has been replicated to other instances?
If that is the case, the only thing that's missing is federated authentication so the user can log in to any instance with a single set of credentials.
From what I understand of federated authentication, your instance needs to be up to authenticate against. This doesn't help if your instance goes down. Did you have some other mechanism in mind?
Replicate password hashes & salts to all instances
#1 would absolutely be the most preferable. There are two possible snags with option #1: sdfsdf
You're introducing a small element of centralization into a decentralized platform
The admins of the centralized authentication server must be competent and trustworthy
Cost wouldn't really be a factor for this solution and could easily be sustained from donations, you're not going to be getting a huge amount of traffic from authentication requests.
I included option #2 for the sake of completeness. This would work, but it isn't the best idea from a security standpoint. The risk can be greatly mitigated with good password requirements and the use of a strong password hashing algorithm like Argon2/bcrypt/PBKDF2/etc in combination with salting the hash. A quick look at Lemmy's code shows that they're already hashing passwords with bcrypt, so that requirement is met, but it doesn't look like they're explicitly salting it. That doesn't really matter too much in this scenario with that algorithm though, since it's going to be salted automatically anyway. Lemmy's code also shows that it's using bcrypt's default cost value (10 rounds), so it would take thousands (to millions) of years to crack the hash if you have even the most basic password requirements in place. If you add the option to put MFA in front of that, you've almost removed the risk entirely, as it won't matter in the very unlikely event that the password actually is cracked, because it's useless without access to the second authentication factor.
So yeah, there are a couple of ways to do it, and each have their downsides/tradeoffs, but the level of difficulty/effort to do it is not very high in either case.
I hope I'm wrong, but... I think network effects could lead to a single instance becoming dominant and therefore vulnerable to such a takeover/sellout. I'm less sure about this, but perhaps non-technical users don't understand the concept of federated instances and flock to a single one. Perhaps there are other tangible benefits of everyone being on a single instance. Just because the protocol allows for decentralization, doesn't mean it will naturally happen. E.g. How many email users are on Microsoft exchange/outlook, Gmail, and Yahoo?
I love the concept of your own data being portable, but am afraid there might be other factors that somehow naturally lead to centralization. Please change my mind!
The biggest risk is if all the most active communities end up centralized on a handful of the biggest instances like they seem to be right now, that means a bad actor would only have to buy up those instances to control almost all discussion on lemmy / kbin.
However, it would much easier for mods to migrate their community to an uncompromised instance than it would be to migrate to a new site completely. Jumping from reddit to lemmy / kbin, users have to abandon their old reddit accounts, move to a completely new website with a completely new interface, and start over from scratch. Jumping from one lemmy / kbin instance to another, users would just have to unsubscribe from the old community and resubscribe to the new one.
I think without account karma the loyalty to the account would be less for the average person. The more annoying part is the communities you've subscribed to and finding them again. I think a simple download of a list that automates resubscribing on a new account would ease that issue for most people.
For an active user would be that you lose access to communities you created. That is a real logistical problem. I started on lemmy.ml and crelated a community then realized that lemmy.world ran a lot smoother (at the time) and moved. I luckily still have access to my original account so I was able to appoint my new account as a mod. So problem solved. If your instance splodes you lose that ability. But likely your sub went with it too anyway.
I guess the real problem I am identifying here is while the fediverse itself is decentralized, your account isn't. It is locked onto one instance and the fediverse is volatile.
Maybe add an ability to attach your account on 2 or 3 instances and keep them synced? If one goes rogue then you have a backup that's still on the fediverse? You can then defederate yourself from one if needed.
Idk.
I guess running a small private instance just for yourself is the best answer.
Thank you for your responses. It really makes me think about the meaning of portability:
Are you moving your identity? (e.g. implementing something like instance-agnostic user PGP keys)
Your data? The posts and comments you've contributed, which would only make sense with the context of the entire thread.
How would the contents of entire communities be migrated? I presume that's where the valuable content is for potential buyers either to drive ad traffic or train models.
Mastodon's export portability mostly focuses on the local social-graph aspects(follows, blocks, etc.) and while it has an archive function, people frequently lament losing their old posts and that graph relationship when they move.
Identity attestment is solvable in a legible fashion with any external mechanism that links back to report "yes, account at xyz.social is real", and this is already being done by some Mastodon users - it could be through a corporate web site, a self-hosted server or something going across a distributed system(IPFS, Tor, blockchains...) There are many ways to describe identity beyond that, though, and for example, provide a kind of landing page service like linktree to ease browsing different facets of identity or describe "following" in more than local terms.
I would consider these all high-effort problems to work on since a lot of it has to do with interfaces, UX and privacy tradeoffs. If we aim to archive everything then we have to make an omniscient distributed system, which besides presenting a scaling issue, conflicts with privacy and control over one's data - so that is probably not the goal. But asking everyone to just make a lot of backups, republish stuff by hand, and set up their own identity service is not right either.
I think you are right for the most part. I assume that some big servers will take most of the users and that the cost of maintaining the fediverse will become quite high in one way or the other as the network grows and the malicious actors gain incentives to interact with the network.
I think the fediverse is more like the old web. I don't really consider my data very portable, but my ways of consuming and interacting with the content is. I for one don't really care if my posts go with me if i move somewhere else. If my home server defederates, then I can move to another kbin instance and my experience remains much the same. The monolithic singular identity that I can take with me wherever I go isn't something the fediverse delivers on right now, but that is fine.
I'm new to the fediverse but have a long history with FOSS and P2P. Realistically, the fediverse is not a money-making venture. It's a passion project to fill a gap in existing software offerings. The source code is hosted online (just confirmed by visiting kbin and Lemmy on GitHub). But the reason they can run without massive influxes of cash is because they are P2P in the resources they consume (fediverse style).
So donations are key. @ernest won't get rich on donations, but they can keep him supported while he develops and maintains kbin, and his experience with kbin could underpin and propel a very prosperous software engineering career, where his reputation precedes him. The passion project continues and the software remains in positive development. I've done the exact same thing in my career and I'm probably 5-10 years ahead of where I'd otherwise be because of my FOSS passion project.
Since the fediverse is a peer-to-peer structure with freely available foundational software, anybody can pitch in resources. Anybody with a computer, an Internet connection, and some sysadmin skills can run a fediverse server. Mileage will vary based on connection speed, hard drive space, etc, but it's completely doable. Lemmy/kbin servers are probably going to be the next most popular service that homelabbers start hosting, and peak-demand can be offset with scalable solutions like virtual servers (VPS offerings like AWS, but these cost more immediate $).
So knowing that, hopefully your question is answered. Short story is the fediverse follows the peer-to-peer (P2P) backbone that torrenting and other piracy methods used (e.g. Napster or Soulseek, but without a central server!) and similar to Tor as well. I specifically name those networks because P2P networking has been incredibly resilient for decades (except Napster, whose central server was shut down).
Decentralization is not only the future, I fear it’s our only hope of maintaining an internet that is truly free as opposed to one built solely for data collection and corporate profit.
To that end. Passion project can end of life, if the dev quits or have other priorities in life. Also something to keep in mind that comes with decentralized structure - the lack of invested continuity.
Perhaps some form of replication could come to the fediverse. If instances can choose to work together to canonically replicate content, that would increase resilience.
The other side of that coin, though, is that money turns something into an obligation, and obligations are soul crushing.
People can always offer to accept a transfer of ownership from a retiring admin. That's happened multiple times on the Fediverse in the past year, and it used to be relatively common back in the days of community forums.
I pay for a seedbox that has 4TB of storage and ungodly speed. Technically I could load my own instance of Kbin yeah? But then what? To be useful to the fediverse at large wouldn't I have to open it up to the public to use? What would attract users to some randos kbin server over any other?
The fediverse is a step towards p2p but there is further to go before "anybody" can pitch in resources. Running a server is not for everyone, I've done it and won't do it again (I've been doing this stuff for a long time BTW).
This creates an imbalance been those running and controlling servers and those not, which has a number of downsides which in the extreme lead to capture and centralisation. The fediverse is a fantastic attempt to reduce those downsides (FOSS, portable accounts etc) but the server/service model remains at the core of the downsides including as the OP asks, how this can be funded and sustained.
IMO the fediverse will struggle to do this at scale. It is here to stay but will find it difficult to reach so many of the population because while small it remains separate, and where it scales sufficiently it becomes attractive for capture and centralisation.
So IMO we need something that breaks from the server model as well as solving the problem that not everyone can contribute resources, and I'm hoping p2p projects can do that.
If there was a p2p network where anyone can contribute resources just by running an app, and anyone can use by paying those running those apps, I think we would be able to have the nice things we want - at increasing scale - without fear of capture, and the real prospect that everyone can participate without being made subjects and exploited.
Is there any reason an instance couldn't just copy Reddit's model? (Advertising that's hidden if you subscribe, paid awards, etc.)
The beauty of federation isn't that we have a million instances. It's that if there's a problem with one instance (such as greed), we can just go to another. In effect it adds competition instead of walled gardens.
Even if there's only a couple big instances that make up the majority of users it's not really a problem as long as the federation option holds. It's not the leaving that makes federation great, it's the ability to leave.
An instance can do whatever it wants, within the terms of the license of the software it runs.
But so can every other one. And ad drive social media has demonstrated itself to be toxic social media. So, you'll end up with a lot of other sites defederating from it.
Being ad driven is what has led to Reddit doing what it's doing, after all. The people who have come here from there should be much more concerned about emulating that kind of model all over again. Otherwise, why not just stay there?
It needs to be a subscription model, an ad model, or a donation model. It's not free to host a website especially one with millions of users. I think a Wikipedia style model could work.
True, I always throw a few euro at Wikipedia when it needs some, and I regularly fund the open source software I use (like Krita).
I'd be curious to know if there are any data on how many people on average would donate to support something they deem valuable vs people who don't.
I mean, this is not a project started for profit, but if a significant chunk of reddit migrates here, it could get a pretty penny just out of donations, I think.
While I'm not discouraging you from donating to the Wikimedia Foundation, it's worth knowing that it's not really a situation of Wikipedia needing your money to survive. Last year's fundraising drive provoked something of a revolt among contributors (they seem to be going around). While it's spread across several pages, the English Wikipedia Request for Comment discussion is probably a good place to start.
In short, the Wikimedia Foundation runs those fundraising drives, previously presented as if they were coming from Wikipedia itself, asking for donations to "keep the site running". In reality, these donations go to the Foundation and are used to fund its "sister projects", leading to a situation where "Wikipedia" is asking for donations that are neither necessary for Wikipedia to survive, nor in most part, going toward Wikipedia at all.
I'm not suggesting the Wikimedia Foundation is off committing acts of evil with your donations, but the Foundation has significant wealth, to the point where they themselves actively donate large amounts to other charities like the human rights org Tides Foundation, with which it shares some current or former staff.
tl;dr: Wikipedia isn't actually struggling financially, isn't asking for donations, and your donations to Wikimedia are in reality going largely to other causes.
If you're a former Redditor, I hope this multi-paragraph "Akshually" screed makes you feel at home.
The idea that any given instance here is going to host "millions of users" is, uh... Frankly, kind of counter to the point of the whole space, really.
Millions of users will be spread out over thousands of instances, and those instances cost from a few dollars to a couple hundred dollars per month to run. Most of these will be primarily funded by the admins' day jobs.
There will be a couple of very, very large servers, which will be a bigger money sinks, but those have also successfully been funded via donations, and are usually run by the underlying software maintainers.
At present, and throughout Rexxit, most need users are going to rock to the largest instances. Yes, this is contrary to the spirit of the fediverse, but it is consistent with the perception of Rexxitors. Perhaps eventually, things will spread out . I think the initial de facto centralization will persist for some time.
It depends on the scale, and on who the advertisers are. The whole idea that ads-based social media is toxic isn't due to annoyance, but due to the fact that it incentivizes the hosts to extend user sessions and stimulate engagement. That means promoting more controversial content, and refusing to moderate toxic people.
The hardware is getting smaller and cheaper, it’s coming pre built with Docker and decentralized apps. It’s catching up. I see a future where you type a command and you have a running instance on your network. On a usb drive. Wherever.
S̶̶̶o̶̶̶.̶.̶.̶.̶i̶̶̶t̶̶̶ ̶s̶̶̶o̶̶̶u̶̶̶n̶̶̶d̶̶̶s̶̶̶ ̶l̶̶̶i̶̶̶k̶̶̶e̶̶̶ ̶M̶̶̶a̶̶̶s̶̶̶t̶̶̶o̶̶̶d̶̶̶o̶̶̶n̶̶̶ ̶c̶̶̶h̶̶̶a̶̶̶n̶̶̶g̶̶̶e̶̶̶d̶̶̶ ̶t̶̶̶h̶̶̶e̶̶̶i̶̶̶r̶̶̶ ̶m̶̶̶i̶̶̶n̶̶̶d̶̶̶ ̶o̶̶̶n̶̶̶ ̶n̶̶̶o̶̶̶t̶̶̶ ̶w̶̶̶a̶̶̶n̶̶̶t̶̶̶i̶̶̶n̶̶̶g̶̶̶ ̶t̶̶̶o̶̶̶ ̶h̶̶̶a̶̶̶v̶̶̶e̶̶̶ ̶c̶̶̶o̶̶̶m̶̶̶m̶̶̶u̶̶̶n̶̶̶i̶̶̶c̶̶̶a̶̶̶t̶̶̶i̶̶̶o̶̶̶n̶̶̶s̶̶̶ ̶w̶̶̶i̶̶̶t̶̶̶h̶̶̶ ̶M̶̶̶e̶̶̶t̶̶̶a̶̶̶ ̶a̶̶̶t̶̶̶ ̶a̶̶̶l̶̶̶l̶̶̶.̶.̶.̶.̶s̶̶̶h̶̶̶i̶̶̶t̶̶̶ ̶ ̶
I made a mistake, it was Fosstodon. They told Meta to fuck off. https://hub.fosstodon.org/assets/images/meeting-with-meta-email.webp
Mastodon is 100% a competitor to #Meta, and if I were #Mastodon, I would watch my back since everything Meta does is only for the benefit (or the endgame is) for themselves and their market share. Best case scenario would for Meta to extinguish Mastodon and have everyone go to #threads.
I do not understand why Mastedon is downplaying the very likely scenario of Meta EEE'ing the shit out of ActivityPub once they get people to migrate to Threads
Whelp, time to pack up I guess. Mastodon is the biggest player in the fediverse right now, so if Meta EEE's us then the fediverse as a concept is doomed.
We have the foreknowledge of seeing EEE happen with XMPP/Google Chat, now. We can fight back against EEE against ActivityPub as it actually happens, with instances defederating with Meta and so on, when they start actually taking those negative actions. It's gonna be fine.
Can we actually fight back, though? most of the people using the Fedi are on Mastodon, primarily coming from places like Twitter and Reddit because of the recent drama. The biggest complaint new people have is about how complicated Masto and other fediverse services are to get into for people who aren't tech savvy, between choosing different instances and figuring out how to use them. Meanwhile, Meta provides a familiar, convenient experience from a brand they already know, even with its horrible reputation. Then when 90% of "fediverse" users are on Threads instead of the rest of the fedi, they'll announce that they are dropping support for ActivityPub and there will only be a few thousand people left elsewhere to mourn it.
I think it’s worth noting that many more of us are aware of EEE than in the past, and while meta is very well known, it’s also kind of infamous. While some services have brand loyalty, meta kind of has a mix of brand apathy or brand repulsiveness to a lot of people. I think the most loyalty you might find would be in people who purchase into the quest ecosystem, or are avid users of Instagram.
I think enough of us are aware of the circumstances that when Meta eventually does start taking steps towards the “extension” phase, they’re going to get called out immediately, and communities are going to better able to resist than in the past.
I would agree if they didn't already shovel in 10 million people from instagram in the past few hours, and you cant leave without deleting your facebook and instagram accounts and everything you have invested in them. They gained in the past few hours more people than the entire Fediverse has gained over the course of several years.
I think most people are here because we don't really like groups like Meta. We existed before, and I believe we can persist without. Meta is going to have Facebook/instagram/whatsapp integration in threads that will require us to visit their site and/or link accounts to view. I think we might as well just defederate at that point.
But they took them from Instagram. As somebody on another forum said, because it sort of came with Instagram, they didn't sign up to Meta out of the blue. People not on Instagram will likely not sign up for it, at least not in those numbers.
That’s a really hot take. It could be that Eugene - exactly as he says, thinks wide adoption of ActivityPub is a hood thing and that federation is robust enough to handle any potential threat from Threads - which isn’t even federating yet.
Why jump straight to ‘the guy is clearly corrupt and has taken money from Meta’?
I understand all the fear around meta. However on federated platforms, is all competition not a good thing?
Also I have to imagine the overlap between the type of people currently on federated platforms, and those willing to use any platform made by meta is rather slim.
Also what do you think about the comparisons with XMPP?
when a large monopolistic company is trying to join the fediverse, its not because they want to play fair. They literally can not try and play fair, if their profits are not continually growing, then they are legally not representing the best interest of the shareholders. if you actually believe that meta joining the fediverse has an altruistic motive, or they they will not act in a way that benefits their shareholders(to kill any competition that takes any of their profit in any way), then you are probably not looking at the full story and need to consider if you are capable of thinking.
Why erect this straw man? No one is claiming Meta is being altruistic, that’s not the question. They aren’t federating at all yet. We have no ifea what the eventual form of federation will take.
I’m not saying they’re doing this out of the goodness of their hearts.
However, it’s important to keep in mind that Meta has no other microblogging platform. They’re not trying to choke out competition, because there isn’t any competition.
I personally believe that they are trying to tap into the Fediverse and use it as a springboard to grow their own platforms. However it’s worth keeping in mind that as any federated platform grows, other federated platforms grow with it.
Kbin’s growth is good for lemmy. The Fediverse grows with this kind of competition.
While Im not personally a fan of meta. It’s probably in the fedieverse’s best interest to at least be willing to come to the table and consider the possibilities, instead of just immediately fighting this. Remember, we haven’t seen the implementation yet. This is all just speculations.
It’s because you can’t “kill” a the AP protocol. XMPP didn’t go away when Messenger and GChat removed support for it, it just went back to how it was before hand, a fraction of tech enthusiasts using it for private communication. It would probably be the same with AP. A separate collection of sites using it to federate information.
… even if Threads abandoned ActivityPub down the line, where we would end up is exactly where we are now. XMPP did not exist on its own outside of nerd circles, while ActivityPub enjoys the support and brand recognition of Mastodon.
Granted this leaves out how Google used it’s influence to control and stagnate the XMPP protocol, but that’s another can of worms.
I see no way they aren't a competitor. Meta is a company. Companies exists to make money. Meta makes money by driving engagement and then monitizing via ads or user data sale for others to target ads.
Like are we all supposed to pretend a company, Meta of all companies, is an altruistic entity? Because that's not how it works... At all.
It's poisoning the well though, even if I don't see the ads. Also they will prioritize inflammatory content to drive engagement, which would affect other instances as well (you know, like they do for all their other apps/platforms).
And corporations are not good or bad, but the for profit ones... are for profit. And I'm sorry but there is no justification for a profit motive in social media.
This is true with Kbin and Lemmy, and Mastodon instances but Meta doesn't have that mindset. They are going to have ads and are going to see users not on their instance as eyes that rightfully belong to them that are not set on those ads.
Again, from the user POV, yes, that is fine. From Meta POV, it's incentive to try and lock as many eyes in as possible using tactics that we probably won't think of because we aren't able to think from the POV of being pure scum.
if you believe meta is going to act in the best interest of the fediverse, and not try to fuck it over, then please kindly remove your head from your ass.
I believe they may try, but I think the approach Mastodon is taking isn't necessarily a warm embrace. They seem to be handling this with skepticism and I have read that they have plans to Defederate if Meta tries to exploit Activity Pub in any way.
Meta will act in Meta’s best interest. We don’t know yet whether that will be be beneficial or damaging to the Fediverse. It could be beneficial in terms of user numbers and general adoption. If they are arses then sure - defederate
that would be censorship, something the fediverse aims to avoid. We all shit on meta/twitter/other large corps for censoring content, but when instance owner's do it, its fine? De-federating for ideological reasons like this goes against the principles of federation.
The thing about the Fediverse is that you have the choice to pick an instance. We shit on "big tech" when they do something, because there isn't anything else to do. I personally want to be on an instance that will defed the fuck out of threads (and anyone else who will bring over people who will delight themselves on harassing me and my friends) should they federate, and if you don't want that you're welcome to go to an instance that won't, and we can still talk to each other.
ps: As far as I'm aware, Fediverse never "aimed to avoid censorship" nor had any "principles on federation". In fact, there are large parts of Mastodon (well, mostly Pleroma/Akkoma/Soapbox) filled to the brim with the worst kinda people you can imagine, yet they're all defederated into their own little sandbox. Nobody can decide who can use and build upon ActivityPub but we sure as shit can decide to not federate with a company so shit at moderation that everyone opposing federation with them seems to be a minority in one way or another.
Problem is that there's a bunch of major communities on that instance. They have no affiliation with the server admins and mostly just chose the instance because it seemed like the default very early in the migration to the Fediverse.
The term "tankie" is a slang term used to describe a person who supports or apologizes for the actions of authoritarian communist regimes, particularly those that have used tanks or military force to suppress opposition or maintain control. The term originated from the Soviet Union's use of tanks to quell protests and uprisings, most notably the 1956 Hungarian Revolution and the 1968 Prague Spring in Czechoslovakia.
While there may be varying interpretations and uses of the term, it is generally used pejoratively to criticize individuals who defend or downplay the human rights abuses, political repression, or atrocities committed by these regimes.
Go to the relevant domain's front page (e.g https://kbin.social/d/kbin.social for kbin.social).
The URL scheme is "https://kbin.social/d/DOMAINHERE" assuming you are currently on kbin.social.
On the right in the sidebar you can see "Domain" and below that options to subscribe or to block.
Really it's the same thing as magazines, just that you generally don't visit the domain itself.
Does that actually work for you? I'm still seeing posts from magazines on domains that I blocked that way. It looks to me like it only blocks articles, and also link posts to the domain, but not link posts on magazines from the domain.
What I hear is that a copy is still made so the posts made before defederalization is available and basically forks without them connected now at the point of being deferated
kbin is still in its growing pains phase. there are tons of little user experience items that need to be worked on. good thing is that @ernest is working hard on it.
I hate tankies myself as well, but I also hate that some communities are only created on lemmy.ml. Plus some official subreddits moved over there as well (and no - no far-left ones).
Uh, they do, actually. The belief is that the USSR was attempting to build communism.
I reject this because they didn't implement any communist policies, even Lenin himself said what they were doing was state capitalism.
The tankie defense is that they were doing it to later establish communism, but nobody who knows what they're talking about actually believes the USSR achieved socialism.
They even refused to help Yugoslavia after they implemented an actually socialist policy (workplace democracy).
The situation with the USSR was rather clearly that an authoritarian dictatorship wanted to call themselves a utopia so they said they were communist.
I don't understand why people give the USSR the benefit of the doubt and assume they were actually trying to do something good.
Hmm... sounds a bit too idealistic to be true, especially given how Facebook has acted in the past. I appreciate his hope for the future, but I think he severely underestimates the lengths to which FB will go to monetize and control users on their platforms.
Here's the scenario I don't like. Threads scrapes my OC on a federated server, then reposts it to their users with advertisements. Now, not only has FB taken my OC without getting my permission or even informing me, they're now garnering profit from it. If this were a print publication, this would plainly be copyright theft. And if I want to remove my content that's now hosted on Threads without my permission, there's no possible way for me to do so - I can delete the post and hope their federated server does the same, but given how hard they make it to delete a FB account, I'm not terribly optimistic.
It's no wonder #threads isn't launching in Europe - there's no way in hell this kind of thing is even remotely GDPR compliant.
That's an interesting point. Can anyone take your original content and repost it to make money? As I understand it, anything you create is theoretically copyrighted at the moment you created. You're not required to file a copyright, at least not in the United States.
US copyright starts at the moment of creation, but the issue here is really enforcement. To get a copyright enforced, you have to bring a civil suit, which is considerably expensive in terms of both time and money. If you're going after a company as big as FB, your expense dramatically increases while your likelihood of getting a favorable judgment drops. And even then, you're probably only looking at getting the content taken down, not a monetary award, because in this scenario it would be near impossible to tell how much ad revenue your specific content generated for FB, or how much was lost to FB if you were getting ad traffic revenue from your content on another platform that's now going to FB.
While these potential problems exist with or without FB in the picture, as any instance owner could theoretically do the same thing, the difference in scale combined with how FB treats its users (cattle) is what's making my alarm bells go off. There's so much potential for abuse, with very little benefit to the existing users of the Fediverse.
Sure they can. Stack overflow is one example. Any business operating on user driven content will be culpable. When you agree to the EULA and it tells you "what you post here belongs to us and we grant you a license to publish it yourself", you're signing over ownership of your content in exchange for a license to replicate it. That's how social media all works, all the EULAs work that way. FOSS is no different.
Dude a federated SO would be a dream. Imagine actually be able to post something without it being flagged as a duplicate of a 10 year old outdated question.
Look I don’t want to be combative here, and my sincere apologies if this response comes off that way but here goes
IMHO this is already the way activitypub works. Platforms that choose to federate, are able to pool their posts and the like. And yes instances can make money off of content posted on other instances. That’s not a bug it’s a feature.
On the other hand, meta sucks and I’m not sure if I’d really want to federate with them either. So like, idk lol, just spitballing
100%. The open and public nature of the fediverse is something everyone should be considering every single time they post on a federated platform. I don't want to federate with meta because ew , but it would be absurd to think that a public platform like this isn't gonna get scraped to hell anyways.
Similarly, if the Earth can’t survive Exxon, it was never going to succeed in the first place.
I just have to keep on hammering this point, because it pisses me off so, so much. Many people seem to believe that, since regulatory bodies can be captured, that regulation shouldn’t be done. This is called learned helplessness, and it’s something malicious people inflict on people they want to exploit.
It isn’t sticking your head in the sand to resist assimilation by an evil corporation.
Similarly, if the Earth can’t survive Exxon, it was never going to succeed in the first place
Actually, yes. The reason Exxon is fucking the planet right now is because of weak regulation. If we can't build a system that is resistant to the threat of earth destroying corporations, we were never going to succeed in the first place.
Your post is arguing (by analogy) that we shouldn’t even bother trying. But I guess you don’t need a suicide note when you can just leave a copy of Atlas Shrugged by your body.
On the contrary, I'm just saying if you build something and it gets co-opted by a corporation it probably wasnt meant to be.
It's like when people talk about politicians being bought out by corporations. If that's something that can even happen, it's the fault of a broken system that would even allow that to happen.
This is a very computer sciencey view, which is why I leapt past the intermediate logic straight to its conclusion. But I’ll spell it out.
There is no rules-based system that will actually stand in the way of determined, clever, malicious actors. To put it in CS-style terms, you’ll never cover all the contingencies. To put it in more realistic terms, control systems only work within certain domains of the thing being controlled; partly this is because you start getting feedback and second-order effects, and partly it’s because there’s a ton of stuff about the world you just don’t know.
If a system is used as intended, it can work out fine. If someone is determined to break a system, they will.
This is why the world is not driven by rules-based systems, but by politics. We’re capable of rich and dynamic responses to problems, even unanticipated problems. Which is to say, the only actual solution to Exxon and Meta is to fight back, not to bemoan the inadequacy of systems.
Indeed, this belief in technocracy is explicitly encouraged by malicious elites, who are aware that they can subvert a technocracy.
What he said is right though. Let me put it this way, politics has a system it's relied on. Ancient Greece has its own style of democracy. Current US has its own style of democracy. The EU has its own kind of system. Here's the thing to consider, the content and state of the system can change over time, but the low level of it - the rule to how the changes can happens or how things operate - rarely changes. Politics can change the rules within the system, but it doesn't typically change or revise the foundation of the system. When revision of the system foundation is so rarely done, the things taking advantage of this foundation obviously don't get solved.
When you say someone who wants to break a system will, it's actually because the base of the system doesn't change so the abuse can keep happening. Let's use US politic as an example. Gerrymandering is a problem. There's no sign of it getting fixed and continue to be a problem even now. The reason is because the current system had made it so that the decision to do so could never come to past, at least not easily. It's a deadlock. If instead the system is revised from the ground up this would be as simple as reasoning during the redesign process that the current method is broken and it isn't good at representing the people so it should not be used. Currently that's not how it's being solved, and it's like trying to fix a problem on your computer without the option to shut down or reset the device.
What he's saying is the system is broken like that and we're not solving it by the most efficient method (mainly due to it being so costly). Even so, sometimes it's just better to scrap and start anew.
That said, I don't think it applies to Fediverse at the moment. It's so new that there are so many ways it could develop and if it fails that doesn't imply the concept of Fediverse is never supposed to succeed. It may just be because the best steps to manage it wasn't taken. Going back to the political analogy, it's like having just the concept of democracy as a framework. But it hasn't been decided yet whether this democracy is going to be dominated by just two parties (like the US), or has many different parties with ranked voting (like the UK). Both are democracies but the foundations and implementations are different. And well, one works better than the other.
Things are politically stagnant because people believe that politics is about systems. Politics is about power, and politics will always be an expression of the dominant power dynamics. Governmental systems are just how power is explained to outsiders; it’s a mythology that’s told to disguise the real nature of power.
So the question of systems is a red herring, that’s been carefully instilled. This has been true for all history: Many kings don’t really rule, courtiers do. Only kings who can effectively wield power rule, and they’re historically in the minority. This should also be obvious in the US: corporate power is only ever checked in the presence of enormous public action. Not public bitching, public action—general strikes being the most important example.
Or to put it really bluntly, while there’s a lot of pageantry in politics, what politics actually is, is power struggles. But they sure don’t want people to recognize this, which is why there’s so much pageantry and partisanship.
This is also why the government is going so hard against Trump, but letting Pence, Clinton, and Biden slide. It’s not because they cooperated—if you or I had security clearances and just took documents out of a SCIF and kept them at home, we’d be in jail. It’s because Trump clumsily challenged existing power, namely the federal bureaucracy (which he conspiratorially calls the “deep state”), and he wasn’t up to the task.
Fediverse
Top