this post was submitted on 20 Jun 2023
195 points (100.0% liked)

Fediverse

287 readers
1 users here now

This magazine is dedicated to discussions on the federated social networking ecosystem, which includes decentralized and open-source social media platforms. Whether you are a user, developer, or simply interested in the concept of decentralized social media, this is the place for you. Here you can share your knowledge, ask questions, and engage in discussions on topics such as the benefits and challenges of decentralized social media, new and existing federated platforms, and more. From the latest developments and trends to ethical considerations and the future of federated social media, this category covers a wide range of topics related to the Fediverse.

founded 2 years ago
 

Imagine a world without platform lock-in, where no ban or billionaire could take down your social network. That’s what ActivityPub has planned.

top 30 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] holo_nexus@kbin.social 15 points 2 years ago (3 children)

Jury is till out it’s way too early to tell. The fediverse seems very unrefined still (which I kind of enjoy tbh). If its truly going “save the internet”, a lot of refining needs to be done in order to attract at a mainstream scale.

It’s been really refreshing so far though.

[–] Ragnell@kbin.social 8 points 2 years ago (2 children)

It is really strange, in that it WORKS like the old Wild West of Web 2.0 when it was all blogs and RSS feeds but it doesn't FEEL like the Wild West. It's definitely civilization here.

[–] beeboopbeep 3 points 2 years ago

Haha yeah this is tame compared to when we went from static sites to dynamic communities. This seems so easy in comparison. Things are much easier now.

[–] holo_nexus@kbin.social 2 points 2 years ago

WORKS like the old Wild West of Web 2.0

Well said

I’m hoping that now that we have seen a fair share of social media companies rise and fall and why they’ve fallen, many people will begin to find out what they are looking for in a social media network.

[–] ash@lemm.ee 7 points 2 years ago

agreed. It’s got bugs, and scalability issues, but i’m liking to “quirkiness” of it. I’ve most most of my stuff to the fediverse so far. It’ll need a lot more polishing to attract mainstream attention, but it’s nice to have this option.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] cakeistheanswer@lemmy.fmhy.ml 10 points 2 years ago

Alright so I'm skeptical we'll keep a useful level of signal to noise the whole time (Usenet). But, for the first time in forever I'm optimistic, there's a lot more technical talent and awareness of how bad it can go this time around, which is amazing to see.

I still don't think people have grappled with the fact there's no total "erase" button even if you can port your data.

But we have open standards again, it feels weird.

[–] TheDeadGuy@kbin.social 8 points 2 years ago

“But at the very least, if a server goes down, it should not be catastrophic to you.” Your social world shouldn’t live inside an app, she says, or depend on a company staying solvent. It should, and could, be much bigger than that.

Exactly

[–] xyon@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 points 2 years ago

It's like Web 1.0, all over again, but this time with better technology

[–] Fiivemacs@lemmy.ca 7 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I ahve massive issues being federated with Facebook, twitter and the other billionaire tech giants. No thanks. I do NOT want them to be able to feed me information. Corporations should have zero ability to discuss or provide input into the lives or regular humans. They have done enough damage and it's time they be silenced.

[–] Newby@startrek.website 2 points 2 years ago

But can't you control what instances you consume?

[–] Steeve@lemmy.ca 7 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Save the internet from what? Being owned by large corporations? Maybe. Stopping the spread of misinformation through echo chambers and getting rid of hate speech? No, definitely not.

[–] pixel 2 points 2 years ago

divesting from large corporations helps address symptoms though, which while not a cure, does help

[–] Senseibu@feddit.uk 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Defederate the truly hateful stuff

[–] Steeve@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

For sure, but then we've just built pockets of echo chambers across the internet (which it already is)

[–] MeowKittyWow 2 points 2 years ago

I think pockets are better than them having broad access to everyone. There will always be a subset of people like that. We don't have to amplify their voice.

None of us is immune to propaganda. Reducing their reach protects the rest of us, too.

[–] freebrick@kbin.social 6 points 2 years ago (1 children)
[–] Lilkev@kbin.social 1 points 2 years ago

I have my tweezers and table ready to go!

[–] SJ_Zero@lemmy.fbxl.net 5 points 2 years ago (1 children)

It already has for me. Most websites I visit today I run myself. How amazing is that?

It’s the digital equivalent of off-grid living. I love how much useful tooling I can host myself on my little cluster, and it is empowering that $megacorp can’t hold it hostage or shove hostile tracking and advertising everywhere. The Fedeverse feels much closer to the spirit of the internet in its infancy.

[–] demvoter@kbin.social 4 points 2 years ago (1 children)
[–] SJ_Zero@lemmy.fbxl.net 2 points 2 years ago

Realcaseyrollins was on this part of the fediverse for a long time, he routinely posts really decent stuff. He has a lot of posts on communities on narwhal.city that can be federated back here.

[–] TGRush@forum.fail 3 points 2 years ago

That's what ActivityPub has planned.

Well, that is kind of what ActivityPub is already allowing us to do.

ACTIVITYPUB!

[–] qprimed@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 years ago

indeed, an excellent article.

[–] shadesver@kbin.social 2 points 2 years ago (3 children)

I heard a sentiment that activitypub and fediverse protocols aren't great for privacy? I'll be honest this was from a reddit comment and was probably biased. I don't know enough about this yet. But I want to learn more!

Anyone have links?

[–] Wander@yiffit.net 6 points 2 years ago (1 children)

They're not because you should assume that everything you say is public and can't be deleted as a remote server may have a copy of what you said.

The key here is to not use identifiable information. Use a pseudonym.

[–] TGRush@forum.fail 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

man am I glad that my real name is so generic that you don't find me unless you specifically search for keywords associated with what I do (e.g "Codeberg" or "Mastodon")

it's truly great to have the same name as somebody famous' brother.

[–] TGRush@forum.fail 0 points 2 years ago

For context

[–] TheImpressiveX@lemmy.ml 5 points 2 years ago

When you post stuff on federated instances, it gets copied to the numerous servers that are federating with it. If you delete something, it'll only get deleted on one server. The other servers might also delete it, but there's a chance that some servers might still keep the deleted posts. So I'd just say be considerate and think twice before posting, because it can't be deleted as easily.

https://joinfediverse.wiki/Best_practices#Data_Privacy

[–] chamim@kbin.social 4 points 2 years ago

I think it depends on what you mean by privacy. But I do recommend you read what the Electronic Frontier Foundation has to say about the fediverse. They released an extensive series about it last year: Leaving Twitter's Walled Garden & The Fediverse Could Be Awesome (If We Don’t Screw It Up).

Here's the part that addresses your concern:

Take privacy: the default with incumbent platforms is usually an all-or-nothing bargain where you accept a platform’s terms or delete your account. The privacy dashboards buried deep in the platform’s settings are a way to tinker in the margins, but even if you untick every box, the big commercial services still harvest vast amounts of your data. To rely on these major platforms is to lose critical autonomy over your privacy, your security, and your free expression.

This handful of companies also share a single business model, based upon tracking us. Not only is this invasion of privacy creepy, but also the vast, frequently unnecessary amount and kinds of data being collected – your location, your friends and other contacts, your thoughts, and more – are often shared, leaked, and sold. They are also used to create inferences about you that can deeply impact your life.

Even if you don’t mind having your data harvested, the mere act of collecting all of this sensitive information in one place makes for a toxic asset. A single bad lapse in security can compromise the privacy and safety of hundreds of millions of people. And once gathered, the information can be shared or demanded by law enforcement. Law enforcement access is even more worrisome in post-Dobbs America, where we already see criminal prosecutions based in part upon people’s social media activities.

We’re also exhausted by social media’s often parasitic role in our lives. Many platforms are optimized to keep us scrolling and posting, and to prevent us from looking away. There’s precious little you can do to turn off these enticements and suggestions, despite the growing recognition that they can have a detrimental effect on our mental health and on our public discourse. Dis- and misinformation, harassment and bullying have thrived in this environment.

There’s also the impossible task of global content moderation at scale. Content moderation fails on two fronts: first, users all over the world have seen that platforms fail to remove extremely harmful content, including disinformation and incitement that is forbidden by the platforms’ own policies. At the same time, platforms improperly remove numerous forms of vital expression, especially from those with little social power. To add insult to injury, users are given few options for appeal or restoration.

These failures have triggered a mounting backlash. On both sides of the U.S. political spectrum, there’s been a flurry of ill-considered legislation aimed at regulating social media moderation practices. Outside of the U.S. we’ve seen multiple “online harms” proposals that are likely to make things worse for users, especially the most marginalized and vulnerable, and don’t meaningfully give everyday people more say over their online life. In some places, such as Turkey, bad legislation is already a reality.

load more comments
view more: next ›