(no title)
e1ven | 5 years ago
This is probably my bias as an engineer showing, but the technology doesn't seem like the hard part-
I always understood that having an resilient network means people will use it to post some bad things, but I don't know if I really internalized the scope of that until later.
I had originally envisioned it might be useful in oppressive countries, where people needed a way to communicate - Recent events have shown how dangerous that can feel when you're in the midst of people who feel like that describes them.
As another HN post pointed out, there are two natural audiences for such networks - Idealists, and those who can't get away with stuff on other networks.. And the second is going to be far more common. That will influence the culture, and help to drive other "good" people away from the service, amplifying the effect.
Even if you have user-selectable moderators (Which I had, similar to the request the author makes), without a huge war-chest to hire a large team of default moderators, you'll never be able to keep up. The default experience for the average user will be terrible.
Over and over, I ran into issues like that - It's relatively easy to built the technological network, but managing the social network aspect is an unsolved problem.
at_a_remove|5 years ago
I have since formulated the concept that any communications channel, any at all, where it does not cost to transmit per message will eventually be colonized by the advertising fungal organism. Even low-cost messaging can be colonized, but the lower the cost, the faster it comes.
Similarly, like FreeNet, any communications channel that can be used to post Things You Do Not Like will be used to do so. And that once you implement some kind of wide-scale filter against that, absolutely nothing can be done to stop someone from attempting to take over, to add and subtract to that filter, for their own purposes and their own ideology.
I have no solutions for this.
nelsondev|5 years ago
I’m imagining an opt in block list, where with enough downvotes, if you are a member of the block list, the content is hidden.
If the block list starts blocking content you want, you can fork it, keep the parts you want, remove the parts you don’t.
intrasight|5 years ago
grahamburger|5 years ago
convolvatron|5 years ago
that doesn't at all address bubbleism, but trying to decide which set of statements is 'ok' for everyone seems like a lost cause
sneak|5 years ago
Yeah, this is why the fediverse is terrible, too. Your site admin shouldn't be the one deciding who you can DM, or which people can follow your feed.
Imagine if email worked that way.
folkrav|5 years ago
notJim|5 years ago
hinkley|5 years ago
This is tantamount to "Stop hitting yourself."
Like the old line about academia, "the fighting is so vicious because the stakes are so low," the stakes for gaming and socializing with internet strangers are both pretty low.
Additionally, computers make you an efficient asshole. You can make a pretty big mess before you have time to think about whether you really should be doing what you just did. To err is human. To really foul things up requires the aid of a computer.
mawise|5 years ago
When people want to use the platform to "become a thought leader" or "expand their network" then you're in the realm of public publishing which is where all the problems you cite become issues. The web makes privacy possible, and I don't understand why so few people are interested in that angle. For me I want to be able to share photos of my daughter with family and friends. I don't care if someone else wants to privately rant about the government to their friends--privacy enables both of these.
[1] https://github.com/mawise/simpleblog
unknown|5 years ago
[deleted]