The TikTok ban and Donald Trump's rise to power show how fragile our social media accounts are. We must normalize and invest in decentralized social media.
There might be clever ways of doing this: Having volunteers help with the vetting process, allowing a certain number of members per day + a queue and then vetting them along the way…
Techy people are a lot more likely to jump through a couple of hoops for something better, compared to your average Joe who isn’t even aware of the problem
Techy people are a lot more likely to jump through hoops because that knowledge/experience makes it easier for them, they understand it’s worthwhile or because it’s fun.
If software can be made easier for non-techy people and there’s no downsides then of course that aught to be done.
I know people don’t want to hear it but can we expect non-techies to meet techies half way by leveling their tech skill tree?
In order to charge her iphone, my mom first turns on airplane mode, and THEN she powers it down. Turns it off completely. I asked why she does any of that. She says “Because they won’t flip the charge switch for me until they do! I wish I could take the battery out first, and THEN turn off the phone. But I suppose if they can’t see my battery with airplane mode on first, this is just as good.”
10th largest instance being like 10k users… we’re talking about the need for a solution to help pull the literal billions of users from mainstream social media
There isn’t a solution. People don’t want to pay for something that costs huge resources. So their attention becoming the product that’s sold is inevitable. They also want to doomscroll slop; it’s mindless and mildly entertaining. The same way tabloid newspapers were massively popular before the internet and gossip mags exist despite being utter horseshite. It’s what people want. Truly fighting it would requires huge benevolent resources, a group willing to finance a manipulative and compelling experience and then not exploit it for ad dollars, push educational things instead or something. Facebook, twitter etc are enshitified but they still cost huge amounts to run. And for all their faults at least they’re a single point where illegal material can be tackled. There isn’t a proper corollary for this in decentralised solutions once things scale up. It’s better that free, decentralised services stay small so they can stay under the radar of bots and bad actors. When things do get bigger then gated communities probably are the way to go. Perhaps until there’s a social media not-for-profit that’s trusted to manage identity, that people don’t mind contributing costs to. But that’s a huge undertaking. One day hopefully…
They also want to doomscroll slop; it’s mindless and mildly entertaining. The same way tabloid newspapers were massively popular before the internet and gossip mags exist despite being utter horseshite. It’s what people want.
The same analogy is applicable to food.
People want to eat fastfood because it’s tasty, easily available and cheap. Healthy food is hard to come by, needs time to prepare and might not always be tasty. We have the concepts of nutrition taught at school and people still want to eat fast-food.
We have to do the same thing about social/internet literacy at school and I’m not sure whether that will be enough.
We have a human vetted application process too and that’s why there’s rarely any bots or spam accounts originating from our instance. I imagine it’s a similar situation for programming.dev. It’s just not worth the tradeoff to have completely open signups imo. The last thing lemmy needs is a massive influx of Meta users from threads, facebook or instagram, or from shitter. Slow, organic growth is completely fine when you don’t have shareholders and investors to answer to.
@a1studmuffin@ceenote the only reason these massive Web 2.0 platforms achieved such dominance is because they got huge before governments understood what was happening and then claimed they were too big to follow basic publishing law or properly vet content/posters. So those laws were changed to give them their own special carve-outs. We’re not mentally equipped for social networks this huge.
I disagree, I think we’re built for social networks that huge. The problems happen when money comes into the equation. If we lived in a world without price tags, and resources went where they needed to go instead of to who has the most money, and we were free to experiment with new lifestyles and ideas, we would thrive with a huge and diverse social network. Money is like a religious mind-virus that triggers psycopathy and narcissism in human beings by design, yet we believe in it like it’s a force of nature like God or something. A new enlightenment is happening all thanks to huge social networks allowing us to express our nature, it’s the institutions of control that aren’t equipped to handle such breakdown of social barriers (like the printing press protestant revolution, or the indigenous critiques before the enlightenment period)
We’re talking about the need for a system to deal with major access of a main facebook/insta/twitter etc… to a majority of people.
IE of the scale that someone can go “Hey I bet my aunt that I haven’t talked to in 15 years might be on here, let me check”. Not a common occourance in a closed off discord community.
Also, noting that doesn’t fully solve the primary problem… of still being at the whims and controls of a single point of failure. of which if Discord Inc could at any point in time decide to spy on closed rooms, censor any content they dislike etc…
I question if we really need spaces like that anymore. But I see where you are coming from.
I was definitely only thinking about social places like Lemmy and Discord. Not networking places like Facebook and LinkedIn.
It really feels like there are zero solutions available. I’m at a point where I realize that all social networks have major negative impacts on society. And I can’t imagine anything fixing it that isn’t going back to smaller, local, and private. Maybe we don’t need places where you can expect everyone to be there.
When we can expect everyone on the planet to be present in a network the conflict and vitrol would be perpetual. We are not mature enough and all on the same page enough as a species to not resort to mud slinging
Could do something like discord. Rather than communities, you have “micro instances” existing on top of the larger instance, and communities existing within the micro instances. And of course make it so that making micro instances are easier to create.
A few have registration requirements, but it’s usually something banal like “say I agree in Spanish to prove your Spanish enough for this instance” etc.
This is a choice any instance can make if they want, none are but that doesn’t mean they can’t or it doesn’t work.
Doesn’t matter if they’re shit or not, they don’t want bots crawling their sites, straining their resources, or constantly shit posting, but they do anyway. And if the billion dollar corporations can’t stop them, it’s probably a good bet that you can’t either.
Those companies want an easy quick way for people to join because they want constant growth. That means not doing any sort of real checking or verification, it’s not because these billion dollar company cannot afford to, it’s because they don’t want to.
Well, what doesn’t work, it seems, is giving (your) access to “anyone”.
Maybe a system where people, I know this will be hard, has to look up outlets themselves, instead of being fed a “stream” dictated by commercial incentives (directly or indirectly).
I’m working on a secure decentralised FOSS network where you can share whatever you want, like websites. Maybe that could be a start.
If you have some algorithm or few central points distributing information, any information, you’ll get bot problems. If you instead yourself hook up with specific outlets, you won’t have that problem, or if one is bot infested you can switch away from it. That’s hard when everyone is in the same outlet or there are only few big outlets.
Problem with tech oligarchy is it just takes one person to get corrupted and then he blocks out all opinion that attacks his goals.
So the solution is federation, free speech instances that everyone can say whatever they want no matter how unpopular.
How do we counteract the bots…
Well we need the instances to verify who gets in, and make sure the members aren’t bots or saying unpopular things. These instances will need to be big, and well funded.
How do we counter these instance owners getting bought out, corrupted (repeat loop).
No? The problem of tech oligarchy is that they control the systems. Here anyone can start up a new instance at the press of a button. That is the solution, not allowing unfiltered freeze peach garbage.
Small “local” human sized groups are the only way we ensure the humanity of a group. These groups can vouch for each-other just as we do with Fediseer.
One big gatekeeper is not the answer and is exactly the problem we want to get away from.
You counter them by moving to a different instance.
Concept is however that if a new instance is detatched from the old one… then it’s basically the same story of leaving myspace for facebook etc… we go through the long vetting process etc… over and over again, userbase fragments reaching critical mass is a challange every time. I mean yeah if we start with a circle of 10 trusted networks. One goes wrong it defederates, people migrate to one of the 9 or a new one gets brought into the circle. but actual vetting is a difficult process to go with, and makes growing very difficult.
Closed instances with vetted members, there’s no other way.
There might be clever ways of doing this: Having volunteers help with the vetting process, allowing a certain number of members per day + a queue and then vetting them along the way…
Too high of a barrier to entry is doomed to fail.
Programming.dev does this and is the tenth largest instance.
Techy people are a lot more likely to jump through a couple of hoops for something better, compared to your average Joe who isn’t even aware of the problem
Techy people are a lot more likely to jump through hoops because that knowledge/experience makes it easier for them, they understand it’s worthwhile or because it’s fun. If software can be made easier for non-techy people and there’s no downsides then of course that aught to be done.
Ok, now tell the linux people this.
It’s not always obvious or easy to make what non-techies will find easy. Changes could unintentionally make the experience worse for long-time users.
I know people don’t want to hear it but can we expect non-techies to meet techies half way by leveling their tech skill tree a bit?
In order to charge her iphone, my mom first turns on airplane mode, and THEN she powers it down. Turns it off completely. I asked why she does any of that. She says “Because they won’t flip the charge switch for me until they do! I wish I could take the battery out first, and THEN turn off the phone. But I suppose if they can’t see my battery with airplane mode on first, this is just as good.”
And you want this woman to learn terminal?
I’m sorry, but could you please elaborate? I’m not being facetious, I truly don’t understand what she’s saying/doing.
Learning is difficult but I have to believe it is still part of the solution.
Why would she ever need to use a terminal?
I imagine she’d be doing normal computer stuff, not writing bash scripts.
I swear half the criticism of Linux I see online is based on people thinking Linux has remained unchanged for the past 16 years.
I don’t even have a terminal app installed. It’s not required for anything I do on my PC.
Yeah that was kinda my point
10th largest instance being like 10k users… we’re talking about the need for a solution to help pull the literal billions of users from mainstream social media
There isn’t a solution. People don’t want to pay for something that costs huge resources. So their attention becoming the product that’s sold is inevitable. They also want to doomscroll slop; it’s mindless and mildly entertaining. The same way tabloid newspapers were massively popular before the internet and gossip mags exist despite being utter horseshite. It’s what people want. Truly fighting it would requires huge benevolent resources, a group willing to finance a manipulative and compelling experience and then not exploit it for ad dollars, push educational things instead or something. Facebook, twitter etc are enshitified but they still cost huge amounts to run. And for all their faults at least they’re a single point where illegal material can be tackled. There isn’t a proper corollary for this in decentralised solutions once things scale up. It’s better that free, decentralised services stay small so they can stay under the radar of bots and bad actors. When things do get bigger then gated communities probably are the way to go. Perhaps until there’s a social media not-for-profit that’s trusted to manage identity, that people don’t mind contributing costs to. But that’s a huge undertaking. One day hopefully…
The same analogy is applicable to food.
People want to eat fastfood because it’s tasty, easily available and cheap. Healthy food is hard to come by, needs time to prepare and might not always be tasty. We have the concepts of nutrition taught at school and people still want to eat fast-food. We have to do the same thing about social/internet literacy at school and I’m not sure whether that will be enough.
We have a human vetted application process too and that’s why there’s rarely any bots or spam accounts originating from our instance. I imagine it’s a similar situation for programming.dev. It’s just not worth the tradeoff to have completely open signups imo. The last thing lemmy needs is a massive influx of Meta users from threads, facebook or instagram, or from shitter. Slow, organic growth is completely fine when you don’t have shareholders and investors to answer to.
The bar is not particularly high with lemmy and that is a focused community.
People aren’t (generally) being made aware of the injustice on the other side of the planet while they are asking a question about C#.
It’s how most large forums ran back in the day and it worked great. Quality over quantity.
@a1studmuffin @ceenote the only reason these massive Web 2.0 platforms achieved such dominance is because they got huge before governments understood what was happening and then claimed they were too big to follow basic publishing law or properly vet content/posters. So those laws were changed to give them their own special carve-outs. We’re not mentally equipped for social networks this huge.
I disagree, I think we’re built for social networks that huge. The problems happen when money comes into the equation. If we lived in a world without price tags, and resources went where they needed to go instead of to who has the most money, and we were free to experiment with new lifestyles and ideas, we would thrive with a huge and diverse social network. Money is like a religious mind-virus that triggers psycopathy and narcissism in human beings by design, yet we believe in it like it’s a force of nature like God or something. A new enlightenment is happening all thanks to huge social networks allowing us to express our nature, it’s the institutions of control that aren’t equipped to handle such breakdown of social barriers (like the printing press protestant revolution, or the indigenous critiques before the enlightenment period)
I dunno man. Discord has thousands of closed servers that are doing great.
If we’re talking about breaking tech oligarchs hold on social media, no closed server anywhere comes close as a replacement to meta or Twitter.
We’re talking about the need for a system to deal with major access of a main facebook/insta/twitter etc… to a majority of people.
IE of the scale that someone can go “Hey I bet my aunt that I haven’t talked to in 15 years might be on here, let me check”. Not a common occourance in a closed off discord community.
Also, noting that doesn’t fully solve the primary problem… of still being at the whims and controls of a single point of failure. of which if Discord Inc could at any point in time decide to spy on closed rooms, censor any content they dislike etc…
I question if we really need spaces like that anymore. But I see where you are coming from.
I was definitely only thinking about social places like Lemmy and Discord. Not networking places like Facebook and LinkedIn.
It really feels like there are zero solutions available. I’m at a point where I realize that all social networks have major negative impacts on society. And I can’t imagine anything fixing it that isn’t going back to smaller, local, and private. Maybe we don’t need places where you can expect everyone to be there.
When we can expect everyone on the planet to be present in a network the conflict and vitrol would be perpetual. We are not mature enough and all on the same page enough as a species to not resort to mud slinging
Could do something like discord. Rather than communities, you have “micro instances” existing on top of the larger instance, and communities existing within the micro instances. And of course make it so that making micro instances are easier to create.
If you could vet members in any meaningful way, they’d be doing it already.
Most instances are open wide to the public.
A few have registration requirements, but it’s usually something banal like “say I agree in Spanish to prove your Spanish enough for this instance” etc.
This is a choice any instance can make if they want, none are but that doesn’t mean they can’t or it doesn’t work.
I was referring to some of the larger players in the space, ie Meta, Twitter, etc.
Right, but they’re shit and don’t good things out of principle.
We, the Fediverse, are the alternative to them.
Doesn’t matter if they’re shit or not, they don’t want bots crawling their sites, straining their resources, or constantly shit posting, but they do anyway. And if the billion dollar corporations can’t stop them, it’s probably a good bet that you can’t either.
Because they want user data over anything.
We want quality communities over anything.
We can be selective, they go bankrupt without consistent growth.
Okay, but the bots work for other people…
… Yes? What does that have to do with anything?
Those companies want an easy quick way for people to join because they want constant growth. That means not doing any sort of real checking or verification, it’s not because these billion dollar company cannot afford to, it’s because they don’t want to.
Their problems are not our problems.
It could be cool to get a blue check mark for hosting your own domain (excluding the free domains)
It would be more expensive than bot armies are willing to deal with.
Well, what doesn’t work, it seems, is giving (your) access to “anyone”.
Maybe a system where people, I know this will be hard, has to look up outlets themselves, instead of being fed a “stream” dictated by commercial incentives (directly or indirectly).
I’m working on a secure decentralised FOSS network where you can share whatever you want, like websites. Maybe that could be a start.
I think you replied to the wrong comment.
Well no?
What did I miss?
I’m speaking broadly in general terms in the post, about sharing online.
This conversation was about bots. Yours is about “outlets” and “streams”, whatever that is.
If you have some algorithm or few central points distributing information, any information, you’ll get bot problems. If you instead yourself hook up with specific outlets, you won’t have that problem, or if one is bot infested you can switch away from it. That’s hard when everyone is in the same outlet or there are only few big outlets.
Sorry if it’s not clear.
What is an outlet?
How is it going to be as big as reddit if EVERYONE is vetted?
Why do you want it to be as big as Reddit?
Isn’t that basically the same result though…
Problem with tech oligarchy is it just takes one person to get corrupted and then he blocks out all opinion that attacks his goals.
So the solution is federation, free speech instances that everyone can say whatever they want no matter how unpopular.
How do we counteract the bots…
Well we need the instances to verify who gets in, and make sure the members aren’t bots or saying unpopular things. These instances will need to be big, and well funded.
How do we counter these instance owners getting bought out, corrupted (repeat loop).
No? The problem of tech oligarchy is that they control the systems. Here anyone can start up a new instance at the press of a button. That is the solution, not allowing unfiltered freeze peach garbage.
Small “local” human sized groups are the only way we ensure the humanity of a group. These groups can vouch for each-other just as we do with Fediseer.
One big gatekeeper is not the answer and is exactly the problem we want to get away from.
You counter them by moving to a different instance.
Concept is however that if a new instance is detatched from the old one… then it’s basically the same story of leaving myspace for facebook etc… we go through the long vetting process etc… over and over again, userbase fragments reaching critical mass is a challange every time. I mean yeah if we start with a circle of 10 trusted networks. One goes wrong it defederates, people migrate to one of the 9 or a new one gets brought into the circle. but actual vetting is a difficult process to go with, and makes growing very difficult.
Vetted members could still bot though or have ther accounts compromised. Not a realistic solution.
Can you have an instance that allows viewing other instances, but others can’t see in?