A social archipelago: Against social media colonialism (draft)
A social archipelago: Against social media colonialism (draft)
Gil's personal website and digital garden
I don't usually self promo but I was interested in the concept of a social archipelago facilitated by closed federation/allowlisting, in response to a lot of the bigotry and spam that's on the Fediverse and how difficult it can be to moderate. I was also curious about how Beehaw/Lemmy users feel about allowlisting and closed federation especially since Beehaw's on the cusp of switching to an allowlist. What are y'all's thoughts on the concept of a social archipelago?
While writing, I consulted these two essays which introduce this idea, so I'll leave them here as "further reading":
You're viewing a single thread.
I'm concerned that people are already eager to bury the fediverse and unwilling to consider what would be lost. The solutions I keep hearing in this space all seem to hinge on making the place less equal, more of a broadcast medium, and less accessible to unconnected individuals and small groups.
How does an instance get into one of these archipelagos if they use allowlists?
Same thing with reply policies. I can see the reason why people want them, but a major advantage on the fedi is the sense that there is little difference between posters. I think a lot of this would just recreate structures of power and influence, just without doing so formally--after all the nature of scale-free networks is large inequality.
making the place less equal, more of a broadcast medium, and less accessible to unconnected individuals and small groups.
I do not think it is a very good analogy. I do not see how this would turn into a broadcast medium. Though I do agree it can feel less accessible and there is a risk of building echo chambers.
How does an instance get into one of these archipelagos if they use allowlists?
By reaching out, I would say. It's most likely a death sentence for one-persone instances. Which is not ideal. On the other hand, I've seen people managing their own instance give up on the idea when they realized how little control they have over what gets replicated on their instance and how much work is required to moderate replies and such. In short, the tooling is not quite there.
I do not think it is a very good analogy. I do not see how this would turn into a broadcast medium. Though I do agree it can feel less accessible and there is a risk of building echo chambers.
Not so concerned on that--people being able to establish their tolerances for whom they want to talk to is fine with me. But if the system goes towards allowlists, it becomes more cliquish and finding a way in is more difficult. It would tend towards centralisation just because of the popularity of certain posters/instances and how scale-free networks behave when they're not handled another way.
It’s most likely a death sentence for one-persone instances. Which is not ideal. On the other hand, I’ve seen people managing their own instance give up on the idea when they realized how little control they have over what gets replicated on their instance and how much work is required to moderate replies and such. In short, the tooling is not quite there.
I run my instance and that's definitely not my experience. Which is of course not to say it can't be someone else's. But something, in my opinion not unimportant, is lost when it becomes harder to find a way in.
It would tend towards centralisation just because of the popularity of certain posters/instances and how scale-free networks behave when they’re not handled another way.
Ah, I get you. That's true.