Mastodawn

Chris Trottier Jul 1, 2023

Imagine if Gmail only let you read 300 emails a day. Would you still use Gmail?

Personally, I wouldn’t. I’d tell Google to take a hike as I’d start doing all my emailing on Outlook or Zoho or Proton—or whatever service let’s me use email in the least annoying way possible.

Now replace “Gmail” with “Twitter”—and that’s basically what’s happened today. Twitter is limiting how many tweets you’re allowed to see.

Well, if Twitter is preventing you from seeing your messages, are you going to put up with that?

Chris Trottier Jul 1, 2023

We all know Mastodon has flaws. But whatever flaws Mastodon has, it still fixes a fundamental flaw with Twitter: one asshole can disrupt service at Twitter, while Mastodon’s service can’t be disrupted due to it being decentralized.

Now don’t get me wrong. Individual admins on specific Mastodon servers can be assholes who disrupt service. We have seen this happen.

But due to Mastodon’s decentralization, asshole behaviour of server admins has limited impact. If you don’t like your asshole admin, you can easily migrate your account elsewhere to a better, nicer server.

Think of decentralization as an “asshole limiter”. Twitter has no asshole limiter. Mastodon does.

Many people, including those who use Mastodon, have told me they don’t care about decentralization. But they should. Decentralization – or the “asshole limiter”, as I like to put it – is the killer feature of the #Fediverse. Here’s why:

Mitigation of Rogue Administrators: In centralized platforms like Twitter, if an admin (such as Elon Musk) chooses to act unfairly or disruptively - essentially being an “asshole” - their actions can affect the entire user base. In a decentralized platform like Mastodon, each instance or server is managed independently. If a user finds an admin to be behaving badly, they have the freedom to switch to a different server where the administrators align more with their values. This effectively limits the potential damage any single rogue admin can cause.

Protection from Single Points of Disruption: Centralized networks can be disrupted by a single point of failure (such as Elon Musk). This could be a technical issue, a security breach, or a bad-faith actor wreaking havoc. In a decentralized network, these issues are isolated. If one server experiences problems, others remain unaffected. This design effectively limits the potential influence of any single “asshole” on the overall service.

Curtailing Unwanted Censorship: On a centralized platform, an admin (such as Elon Musk) can censor content or ban users platform-wide. In decentralized networks, no single admin has the power to enforce such sweeping control. If a user feels their content is unfairly censored by an “asshole” admin, they can simply switch to a different server where the administration is more to their liking.

Reducing Impact of Unfair Standards: In decentralized platforms, each server can set its own community standards. So, an admin (such as Elon Musk) acting as an “asshole” by imposing unfair rules on one server doesn’t affect the other servers. Users can choose a server with rules they find fair and reasonable, reducing the overall impact of one admin’s unreasonable behavior.

If you find yourself constantly battling with digital dictators on your favorite social platforms, it might be time to join the Fediverse. After all, who wouldn’t want to plug into a platform where the “asshole limiter” is always turned up to eleven?

atomicpoet's instance

Simonoid Jul 1, 2023

@atomicpoet Yup I've seen it in some of the communities I'm in. Centralised services with assholes that shouldn't be there. On the flip some would describe me as the asshole.
The right to exist with assholes makes centralisation bad.

Darnell Clayton

@atomicpoet Even better is for the price of #Twitter blue you can run your own server, & still connect with the rest of the #Fediverse! That is also the power of de-centralization.

Chris Trottier Jul 1, 2023

@darnell Yep, by far, the best experience on the Fediverse is self-hosting. Hopefully, everyone can some day do it.

Kerry Mitchell 🍁Jul 1, 2023

@atomicpoet Well, me for one. Strong moderation isn’t that appealing. It’s like living in a neighbourhood with an overly restrictive homeowner’s association. If it was easy for everyone to have their own server, and everyone did, maybe the Fediverse would be better - no little Elons. Twitter was, at one time, a reasonably open forum. The Fediverse has too great a potential to fragment into gated communities and ghettos.

Chris Trottier Jul 1, 2023

@KerryMitchell Did you read my post? I’m not talking about “strong moderation”.

Kerry Mitchell 🍁Jul 2, 2023

@atomicpoet I don’t know how to explain it more simply… Federation is used as a means of extending your community standards to other instances. It’s as though a small neighborhood told the developer of a much larger neighbouring subdivision that they don’t like red houses and if you allow red houses we’ll barricade the freeway. Federation is moderation because it gives admins leverage to regulate speech on other instances. It isn’t a process where every user has a say either.

Chris Trottier Jul 2, 2023

@KerryMitchell That has nothing to do with my post.

Kerry Mitchell 🍁Jul 2, 2023

@atomicpoet Are you for real? You’re saying you have more freedom by changing instances. I’m saying you don’t, because the structure of the federation creates a “tyranny of the minority” structure.

Chris Trottier Jul 2, 2023

@KerryMitchell You know, nobody really owes anyone federation. It's all about freedom of association, just like how freedom of speech is important too. So, if I happen to come across a server that seems to be filled with not-so-friendly folks, I totally have the right to block it.

By the way, I'm actually on a single-user server myself, and you're in the biggest server on the Fediverse. Surprisingly, I've never had any issues with federation, not even once!

But hey, even if the Fediverse was condensed into just two servers instead of 25,000, it would still be way more useful than Twitter, which doesn't federate at all. Pretty cool, huh?

Kerry Mitchell 🍁Jul 2, 2023

@atomicpoet You are correct about freedom of speech and freedom of association being different. Unfortunately, federation doesn’t provide either well. It doesn’t distinguish well between public and private spaces and it isn’t all that transparent to users if you’re broadcasting to “everyone” or a group that “must” share a common set of values or goals.

Chris Trottier Jul 2, 2023

@KerryMitchell Once again, you seem to be discussing unrelated issues that are not relevant to the original post. It's important to focus on the fact that Elon Musk recently made it a requirement to have a Twitter account in order to read tweets. Additionally, once registered, users are only able to read a maximum of 300 tweets at a time.

Perhaps you're not aware that the majority of Fediverse servers allow users to read posts without requiring an account. Moreover, these servers rarely impose a limitation of 300 tweets.

It's comparable to someone complaining about Greta Thunberg drinking from a water bottle while being completely unaware of the environmental impact caused by Exxon.

Kerry Mitchell 🍁Jul 2, 2023

@atomicpoet No argument that Musk has fucked up Twitter. I think people coming from Twitter to Mastodon shouldn’t be told a lie about what it’s like though. It is very constrained by design.

xs4me2 Jul 2, 2023

Decentralisation is the core to ensure democratic behavior. Do not need any disruptive autocrats here…

kdacar Jul 2, 2023

@atomicpoet I'm not saying Elon is an asshole, I'm just saying the only way to avoid Elon is an asshole filter.

https://atomicpoet.org/objects/307f342f-bca3-4f84-9511-d75c19a935f8

Chris Trottier (@[email protected])

Many people, including those who use Mastodon, have told me they don’t care about decentralization. But they should. Decentralization – or the “asshole limiter”, as I like to put it – is the killer...