For sure. Not that we don’t have problems, but corporate overlords mining our data or censoring us for political back scratching aren’t among them. That’s all imma trying to say.
Comment on Bluesky has started honoring takedown requests from Turkish government
sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 11 months agoThey are not the good guys, the fediverse is.
I think you’re overselling the Fediverse here. The Fediverse also absolutely has censorship, it’s just by individual instance admins instead of a for-profit company. If large, influential instances shut down or defederate, a lot of content goes with it.
Yeah, federated instances technically cache that data, but those communities are effectively dead, links are broken, etc. Users can jump to other services, sure, but the service isn’t the same.
We’ve seen this here on Lemmy. Beehaw was a cool instance, but they defederated fairly early on. Lemmy.ml was super impactful, but their admins are super aggressive with moderation to the point that many avoid their communities. And so on.
Whether “the Fediverse” is good depends on your instance and the mods and admins of the various communities you are part of. That kind of sucks.
Maybe it sucks less than whatever major social media network you’re comparing to, but I hesitate to call it “good,” just different.
VampirePenguin@midwest.social 11 months ago
sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 11 months ago
Nothing is really stopping them from mining your data on Lemmy, all they need is to create an instance and federate, and then get can hoover up whatever they want.
Censorship is more difficult, sure. But we’re still subject to whatever arbitrary censorship the mods and admins want.
I think the Fediverse is on net better, but I do think the model has many other problems, and that it’s more of a stepping stone to something better. But being “better” doesn’t mean we’re “good” and the other options are “bad,” it just means we make different tradeoffs. There’s a very real risk of large instances shutting down because the admins lost interest, for example.
73ms@sopuli.xyz 11 months ago
Well it is fundamentally better because it does not only have a single party that makes all the calls thanks to the real decentralization. I wouldn’t call all of fediverse “the good guys” but I would call it “good”.
sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 11 months ago
Sure. It’s like comparing having one tyrant, which can be good or bad (but at least isn’t going anywhere) vs a lot of tyrants whose power is limited to their little area, and who will come and go. I guess that’s better, but I don’t think anyone would say it’s “good,” just a bit better.
I like the Fediverse, I just think it only went halfway to solving the problem.
73ms@sopuli.xyz 11 months ago
Do you have a proposal for how you’d solve the other half then or just think it isn’t enough?
sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 11 months ago
Yeah, I’m working on something that I think should improve on things, but I keep bringing it up in the hopes that someone beats me to it. Here are some notes:
- P2P network based on something like IPFS or Iroh (I picked Iroh)
- a “community” is a distributed hash table, with posts, comments, etc as structured keys
- everything is cryptographically signed by the author, so you can check for tampering (built-in feature of Iroh)
- moderation is also distributed, based on “trust”; everyone is a moderator, and you “trust” others’ moderation either explicitly or by happening to moderate similarly; options are “like,” “dislike,” “relevant,” “report” (spam, CSAM, etc)
- everyone contributes a little storage to the network, and you can adjust your storage quota
Some interesting side effects of this design:
- single namespace - no “instances” since hosting is distributed (so just “Technology” instead of “Technology@lemmy.world”)
- everyone will see a different feed due to differences in moderation choices
- no concept of “all” since you wouldn’t sync communities you don’t care about - I would add a discovery mechanism to help here
- could be “sneakernetted” if countries block this service, provided you have a way to discover other users in each closed region
- nobody can censor you since moderation is opt-in, so I literally cannot respond to takedown requests by governments
- there’s a very real risk of echo chambers, but that’s on the user not centralized mods
When launching, I’d have a default set of mods that automatically “block” things like CSAM, but users can choose to remove those and/or adjust weights. The idea is for moderation to be transparent, but also something users aren’t expected to change.
The only hosting needs would be:
- relay servers to connect people - relay servers would be federated and incredibly lightweight
- storage instances - only needed in the early days until enough people join the network
- website for documentation and whatnot
It’s very early days (still working on the P2P part, but have a POC for the moderation algorithm). I’ll probably post once I feel like it’s actually useful, which won’t be for a while.
squozenode@lemmy.world 11 months ago
There’s always gonna be an admin of some kind unless we all run our own instances, but that ends up with everyone just in large echo chambers again, as they federate only with people they agree with, or to scream at people they don’t.
sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 11 months ago
That’s not necessarily true. Is there an admin of BitTorrent? Not really, people just contribute resources and the network keeps on trucking.
I’d like to see more exploration of P2P networks like BitTorrent. It should be that a single person leaving the network doesn’t impact anyone, data just gets shuffled so it stays available. The tricky part is moderation, but surely that’s a solvable problem.