Comment on A social archipelago: Against social media colonialism (draft)
CasualTee@beehaw.org 3 months ago
I think the current technical limitations push us toward this archipelago model.
The thing is, bigotry and racism, to name only two, will exist on any social media, any platform where anyone is free to post something. And since those are societal issue, I don’t think it is up to the fediverse to solve. Not all by itself by any means.
What the fediverse can solve however, is to allow instances to protect themselves and their members from such phenomenon. And my limited understanding, as a simple user, is that’s it’s not possible right now. Not on lemmy nor on Mastodon, if I trust the recent communications around moderation and instance blocking. Not without resorting to allow list.
This is annoying to admit because it goes against the spirit of the fediverse. But the archipelago model is the only sane solution short term IMO. And it will stay that way until the moderation tools make a leap and allow some way to share the load between instances and even between users.
petrescatraian@libranet.de 3 months ago
@CasualTee I think both models (i.e. allowlist/blocklist) have their own perks and drawbacks and are all necessary for a healthy and enjoyable internet.
The reason why this is the way it is, I think, is that most of us are both in a minority and a majority at the same time. Take for example me: I am a cis white Romanian, just like the majority of the people in my country. I do however tend to hold some more progressive views, which puts me in a smaller group (e.g. I do think that LGBTQIA+ folks should be allowed to marry each other and adopt children). I do support Ukraine and hope it wins the war, which is what most people do, and I also believe climate change is real, and that it affects our daily lives (you might find that surprisingly maybe that I call myself having a majority view like this, but most people like me are old enough to remember the snowy winters pre-2015). Yet I am totally decided to spend as much of my life possible without owning a car, and trying to do all sorts of things to be more eco-friendly. I am also an atheist, which, it seems, is not so much of a majority view, as most of the people declare themselves Orthodox (and many more are believers in a different religion - Muslims, Greek/Roman Catholics, Judaists etc.) - and the list goes on and on.
I am sure many of you find yourselves in a similar position, and again, that's okay. You don't have to fight against the wind if you don't have a reason to.
What the Fediverse tried, however, was to take the control of social media from the hands of the few, and put it in the hands of the many - and it is partly succeeding - it's just a much better way of managing the online social interactions, free of any censorship that would go against our views (and Beehaw is no exception, congrats, team! 😁).
Now that people are fleeing to the Fediverse, we're just gathering our tribe - and this is a natural phenomenon. You'll never talk and interact with anybody on this planet during your life, not even in your country or even your city if it's large enough. But you might have friends that have friends that talk to certain people or others, and so on. You might also agree to communicate with any of these people at some point, or maybe the way they view things is just too different than yours that you might choose not to see these people ever again.
Even back on Facebook I found some people that I was (and still am to this day) dead sure that they outright blocked me, even without doing anything bad. And I also blocked others myself.
So yeah, the Fediverse is more representative of life as a whole. And that's a great thing.
GoToSocial, to my knowledge does have an allowlist mode btw.
And Hubzilla uses a different protocol, that allows for Nomadic Identity. Not sure if this will have any type of impact on moderation, however.
@kalanggam
CasualTee@beehaw.org 3 months ago
I would tend to agree. I think both methods have their merits. Though ideally I’d rather have most instances use a blocklist model. This is less cumbersome to the average user and this achieves (in my opinion) one of fediverse goal of having an online identity not tied to an instance, an online identity you can easily migrate (including comments, follow, DMs, …) if needed.
But the blocklist model is too hard to maintain at this time. There are various initiative to try and make it work, such as fediseer, and it might be good enough for most. But I think it’s a trap we should not fall into. On the fediverse, “good enough for most” is not good enough.
I think there is indeed something of that effect going on as well, this is true. But I do not think this warrants a move to allowlist by itself.
I think the move to allowlist is mandated by the fact that building a safe space for “minorities” is hard. The tools to alleviate issues such as harassment and bigotry are not sufficient at this time to keep those communities fully open.
Which is a shame as I think the best way to fight those issues, as a society, is to have people express themselves and have healthy conversation on issues that are rarely brought up.
But we are not entirely giving that up by moving to an archipelago model. It just means that individuals would have multiple accounts, on different archipelago. The downside is that it makes the fediverse less approachable to the average person.