Decentralisation doesn’t necessarily come with decentralized technical infrastructure, but its the basis for it. I’m still betting on ActivityPub. Sure social insentives are important, but the most openess will win. Also, Wordpress, Flipboard, Threads already joined ActivityPub, so the ecosystem already is kind of attractive in that direction.

Yeah, that’s really awesome

Piefed solves this with topics kind of neatly. You keep the unique communities but they are all in one place

What aren’t they joining Mastodon and Lemmy? Or even Threads?

That’s still possible without banning corporations completely from the Fediverse (which will not be possible anyways). It’s just melancholic daydreaming.

That’s black and white thinking and undemocratic. Conservatives respect democracy and should therefore be a part of it.

Also they obviously something to contribute, next to Liberalism and Socialism, Conservatism is one of the biggest political traditions. Let’s not be so stupid to assume that it’s complete bullshit.

Conservatism protects traditional institutions, watches that change is not too fast and traditionally, also warns against too much destructering of traditional societal structures by the market. Maybe modern conservatives don’t necessary do all of that, but it’s a tradition that has earned itself.

Firstly: commerzialization will come eventually anyways.

Secondly: what has all of that to do with democracy? I would hope that the Fediverse thrives to become a democratic place.

Also, the Fediverse is currently still rather small. If it should benefit humanity as a whole, you will not be able to avoid corporations completely.

I don’t want to save the liberal democracy, thanks.

Wow, that’s great. Only the thing that our society is based on for last decades with a tradition of hundreds of years. Great, down the toilet with it! Hope you got some idea with what to replace it …

You can have that. But I also want conservatives in the Fediverse to simulate societal debate better here. Defederation still exists, of course.

It’s not about agreeing on everything but about finding common grounds again between opposing parties that at least share some common values.

What do you mean? Sure with Nazis and Tankies I’m okay to split with permanentaly, but other instances its a dynamic, always changing process. This is much more what societal debate looks like than on Twitter/Threads currently.

In the Fediverse, finding together is encouraged because it increases your user base. On Twitter, fight means more money for the owner, so fights and splits are encouraged there.

So yes, Fediverse is better at simulating societal debate. My article was never about preventing splitting in the Fediverse COMPLETELY (this will and should never happen), its about preventing a split of democratic forces into tribes that fight each other and don’t manage to unite and that are in constant fight like on Twitter/Threads.

I’m not saying that your instance needs to federate with her. But it would be good to have her as part of the Fediverse and say: look world, in the Fediverse, people can discuss things much better than on Twitter.

That’s all I’m saying. I’m not even saying she is a good or bad person. I do think some of her statements are transphobic, but I also think she got radicalized because of the cultur war. I’m pretty sure in the Fediverse, once discussions are not heated up by algorithms, some people might become more moderate again.

Will this be the case for Rowling? Not necessarily. But she should still be in the Fediverse.

(Or at least at some point; counting her in this early may have been too provocative)

Sounds fine at first glance

Free fediverse(s) makes sense, building on top of that already floating term sounds sensible

Ok, I may have blown the discussion a bit out of proposition earlier. It’s just that I thought you meant basically the whole Fediverse. The name “Free Fediverse” is a bit misleading imo.

Strategically, that’s an opportunity for the free fediverses today.

Yeah, probably. Question is how big it will become. Let’s see.

Well, there are always people who want a more safe space and in turn leave (or threaten to leave) a certain environment. Whether the environment then choses to make itself more safe or to stay the same is a careful consideration. Making it more safe might make other users leave, but also attract others to the instance.

In the same way, there will be people calling for more openess/“free speech”, prompting the same consideration.

For me, the basis of this is given by law; everything else needs to be negotiated dynamically, how open/save an instance is might change over time depending on its users.

Now, in this debate, identity politics tends to favour more safety by default, which might make sense at first, but if you follow it through consistent, you end up in something like garden eden. Because there, everything is safe, you don’t need to fear any threat whatsoever, but you are also not really doing anything. If you default to “safe is always better” you end up in a totalitarian system.

So safety/openness is in general a worth consideration and it should be dynamically debated. Maybe in a few years, consent-based federation proves itself to be a best-practice to make a place safer for trans people and becomes a standard; then we all adapt it happily - that would be fine with me; but if so, I see it at the end of a process.

No wait, I was wrong Its not necessarily instance protectionism. For especially vulnarable groups consens-oriented federation might make sense.

The question is whether this is the desired state for all instances and I would disagree here. I think this falls under a bigger societal debate: should the fediverse become a place were all potentials of harm are completely erased? In other words: should the Fediverse become a safer space?

First of all, minorities should be protected as by the laws of many countries. However, what harm looks like beyond that should be dynamically defined in social debate. Now you want to skip that and erase all potential out of the stand.

This ignores that these societal norms change over time and that a certain risk is part of the human condition. There always needs to be a balance between freedom and protection for the whole society. But as said before, safer place are also needed, but they dont work as blueprint for the whole society.

Early christian groups can also considered safe places. You are aligned here with what to me are totalitarian argumentation patterns that thrive for a garden eden that will never exist.

That doesnt mean that we shouldnt thrive for certain ideals but not for things that cannot and shouldnt be expected of people, like giving up their free will for complete safety.

It’s fine if single instances do consent-based federation that prioritize safety over openess, but why should it become the default for all instances? It will result in instance protectionism and an overall decline in discussion quality. Making it opt-in means people will connect less likely with folks from other instances, meaning people will mainly stay on their instances, meaning it supports tribalism in the Fediverse. More safety usually comes at a cost, too. In this case: less interaction with other instances.

But if you federate with instances that you trust good enough in the first place, constent-based federation is not necessary imo.

Like, I’m starting to think it was your alt that made those posts,

This is so dumb but it DOESN’T EVEN MATTER FOR THE ISSUE AT HAND. Stop distracting (also: I think they are valid so why should I have made an alt?)

Or maybe you just want to argue with someone? In that case you’ll need to find someone else too

No, I’m done here

Well they always were pretty radical, so that’s nothing new … But now also the Lemmy community is turning more and more authoritarian (or it wasn’t as apparent to me at it is now). That’s why removing the post is really problematic. With this they seem to silence the extremism problem of the lemmy community, which (also never a secret) is partly due to the developers political standing.

deleted by creator