If the descentralization of social networks continue, we will have to prepare for the eventual rise of the instances wars, where people will start to fight about which instance is better and which one is weird to be in and so on, but that’s for the future of us all.

  • Kaldo
    link
    fedilink
    141 year ago

    E-mail spam filter is funded by google and other multibillion megacorporations though, and they just outright block or rate limit unknown providers. I’d say it’s not gonna be as easy to do it with fediverse.

    This is why yes, there needs to be a feed algorithm. “Just show it to me chronologically” is the most naive thought

    Agreed 100% but again, I wonder if we have enough resources to actually make it good while also keeping it free, both in terms of monetization and in terms of outside influence and biases. Twitter and others spend a lot of manhours on it and mastodon still doesn’t have it either for example, it’s not even being worked on afaik (or nobody talks about it).

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        31 year ago

        how to leverage the community for quality signals

        I say we give each person one up or down vote on each piece of content. Then, people should be able to sort by the sum of those up or down votes (with up being worth +1 and down being worth -1).

        I’m not sure, but I suspect a system like that might have content moderation built into its structure.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            11 year ago

            Moderation itself can be gamed. A moderator who’s a bad actor can cause a lot of damage easily by “gaming” the moderation system.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                11 year ago

                Mutliple moderators are because more centralization means easier corruption. If you extrapolate the diffusion of power to its extreme, you arrive at crowdsourced moderation.

                It’s true that crowdsourced moderation can be gamed, but it takes some effort and that level of effort only goes down by adding accounts with moderating powers.

                A moderation team is easier to corrupt than a totally decentralized voting system. That’s like the entire argument for why we like democracy: it’s harder to corrupt a populace at large than it is to corrupt a cabal in authority. It’s possible, but it takes more effort making it as good as you can get in terms of incorruptibility.

                  • @[email protected]
                    link
                    fedilink
                    1
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    To see how democracy is an attempt to avoid corruption, think of that rebellion as a forceful objection to a corrupt centralized power structure.

                    And we’ve seen how easy it is to corrupt large populations recently. Harder to corrupt the masses? No.

                    Actually I don’t think large populations have been corrupted.

                    I think that the media has been pushing the narrative of populations getting corrupted, of cultural viruses turning people into weaponized zombies, in an attempt to undermine the perceived value of democracy.

                  • @[email protected]
                    link
                    fedilink
                    11 year ago

                    I mean, I get the concept of democracy vs republic.

                    The key point is that in a republic the few who hold more power are elected by the many to rule them. Moderators don’t work like that.

                    If we do mod elections, I’m all for it. Sometimes (as they would say in ancient Rome) you just can’t get it done without a dictator.

                    If we want to elect some temporary mods to deal with temporary existence of problems that can’t be solved without absolute power, that’s a lot more reasonable than having permanent mods that aren’t elected.