Exactly, well said.

When I switched to Substack it was just a Mailchimp alternative (I don’t think Mailchimp moderates what they send out either). They were a service, not a platform. But since then Substack has added a lot of social elements. And now that I’ve been made aware of their stance, I’m planning my exit ASAP.

Exactly. FTA:

"Trust and safety” departments are kinda like “Human Resources” departments. They exist to help the company avoid expensive lawsuits and expensive PR blunders. These departments, I assume, are comprised of good-hearted people who care deeply about their work and the well being of others. But they are fighting a battle that the companies do not actually want to end.

It’s literally in the article lol

I actually did jump into the replies and went back and forth with him a bit and I do think he (finally) understood the FOSS perspective. I think a lot of people get very hung up on this concept of a customer-product relationship and for some people it’s a very hard mindset to break out of. I often forget that while “FOSS” is software, the “free software movement” is not really about software, it’s political.

It’s like telling someone with a shitty landlord to move to a new free house which they get to own

“Hey so my free car that was built and maintained entirely by volunteers who received no financial compensation and was provided to me no strings attached is making a weird noise and I don’t want to learn how to fix it myself nor am I willing to wait for someone else to fix it, nor am I willing to even tell the car-builders it has a problem.”

In this context suggesting they complainer pay for a car doesn’t sound so crazy?

I and a few other people kinda chatted with him a while and the reality kinda seemed to click with him? He was very stuck on “it is a product and I am the customer” mindset that is very ingrained into so many people. He said filing a bug report felt “dehumanizing” and we tried to illustrate that it can actually feel empowering if you view yourself as a collaborator, not a customer. I think he’s coming around.

At least I hope he is because (opinion on FOSS aside) he really is one of the all-time best creators on YouTube right now.

Exactly! I actually talked back and forth with him a bit and eventually said that “complaining about a missing FOSS feature is like complaining to the volunteer ladeler at a soup kitchen about the lack of a gluten-free option. It’s just not the path to getting the change you want.”

In the end he seemed to get what I was saying, but was still irritated. I’ve been really learning lately how hard it is for some people not to see themselves as customers in FOSS land.

Very well said all around, (and in many fewer words than it took me) I may actually quote you in the future! Hadn’t seen that 2018(!) Esquire article before today either. Kind of sad “Twitter without Nazis” wasn’t a more compelling selling point. Just speaks to the power of network effects, I suppose.

I look at that as as proof it wasn’t written by GPT.

Yeah. People should have a right to speak their mind, but on the Fediverse nobody is forced to listen and therein lies the difference, IMO.

The success metric is a vibrant, happy community, not MAUs or engagement numbers, so they make decisions accordingly.

YES well said. An instance is measured by it’s quality, not it’s profitability.

Any civility rule that is enforced with greater priority than (or in the absence of) a “no bigotry” rule serves only to protect bigots from decent people.

There’s a saying I think about a lot that goes “The problem with rules is that good people don’t need 'em, and bad people will find a way around 'em”.

The best thing about human volunteer mods vs automated tools or paid “trust and safety” teams, IMO, is that volunteer humans can better identify when someone is participating in the spirit of a community, because the mods themselves are usually members of the community too.

Yeah, I think it’s important to keep in mind that the Fediverse doesn’t solve any of the problems that come up when a bunch of people talk about stuff they’re passionate about. The problems Federation solves is the incentivizing and spotlighting of the sorts of toxic behavior we see on corporate social media.

If a Fediverse instance grew so big that it couldn’t moderate itself and had a lot of spam/Nazis, presumably other instances would just defederate, yeah? Unless an instance is ad-supported, what’s the incentive to grow beyond one’s ability to stay under control?

I fear if these federated systems do grow popular enough

If an instance did grow “too big to moderate”, it would surely be defederated from, yeah? I’m struggling to think of a situation where responsible admins from well-moderated instances would willingly subject their users to spammers from an instance (no matter how big) that can’t control itself.

The key word here is “large”. From the article:

“[Fediverse] instances don’t generally have any unwanted guests because there’s zero incentive to grow beyond an ability to self-moderate. If an instance were to become known for hosting Nazis —either via malice or an incompetent owner— other more responsible instances would simply de-federate (cut themselves off) from the Nazi instance until they got their shit together. Problem solved, no ‘trust and safety’ required”

You’re not incorrect, but I think the thing that differentiates this era of social media from the “before times” (I was there too) is that it’s significantly easier for non-techies to join. The internet nowadays has significantly more diversity of perspectives than back then. Those differences are exploited and exaggerated by social media companies to generate engagement. It seems to m that the fediverse model allows for diversity and sanity (or at least not algorithmically-encouraged _in_sanity).

Thanks for reading and the comment!

I personally wouldn’t judge any Yankees fan living in Boston who chooses to remain closeted about their allegiances and only discusses sports online.