FBXL Social

@strypey @raphael If you’re going to have one community for everyone, there should be some way of allowing multiple moderation styles to co-exist within it, like Aether used to have.

I reckon it's probably better to make it P2P from the ground up instead of trying to optimise a system that's not built for that.

I don't know. Didn't get a chance to use it much.

the answer is “they failed”

Can you be a little more specific? Like I said, I wasn’t using it while it “failed”, so I don’t have much experience here.

you still need to have some form of collaborative filtering / moderation.

But the advantage of those sorts of systems is that you can have many more types of moderation and collaborative filtering that aren’t “a single autocrat who owns or rents the hardware has absolute control”. Such as Aether’s democracy; or Scuttlebutt’s “subjective moderation”/public blocking; or maybe a hierarchy where the person at the top (say, the founder) delegates control to moderators to run subforums but he doesn’t have direct control over those subforums, and those moderators can delegate further and so on ad infinitum, like DNS; or a normal political system but with protection against certain abuses of power, such as shadowbanning. Sure, you could try and implement something like those systems in a standard server-focused model, but the single autocrat with the hardware can break the rules any time they like.

Whether the person is my friend or not, all other things being equal, it’s better for him to have less power than more. And even if he is my friend, he might not be other users’.

Technological tricks that increase your power as a user (key based identity, data portability) can work in both kinds of systems.

Yes, but can radically new (for the internet) political systems such as those I described?

replies
1
announces
0
likes
0

That's a common fallacy I see people make. Just because a new idea won't be perfect, doesn't mean it's not better than the status quo.

I've actually spoken at length about this before, that it's one of the biggest weaknesses of the Lemmy ecosystem -- everything is centralized. As long as your instance in my instance connect and you and I as users consent, we can have a conversation here. If mastodon.world doesn't like that, there's nothing that it can do about it. By contrast, on Lemmy each community is an atomized thing on the server that it resides on. It gets to decide who moderates, even if nobody from that particular server is having a conversation because their server is the one hosting the community.

The other big negative of that is exactly what you said, that you could have a thousand of the exact same community because every server has to have their own, meaning that a relatively small user base ends up getting split up, and people who might like to talk to each other maybe can't talk to each other.

My view a more correct answer would be to figure out a way to have a fully decentralized community that can be somewhat locally administered. That way everyone has a copy of the same list of posts, but maybe every server maintains its own list of posts and users it doesn't find acceptable, like a curated usenet. Then a smaller group could have more discussion.

Can you go into more detail? What trust relationships are there but obscured in, say, Aether, or Freenet, or IPFS, or BitTorrent?

That can change, and that's a trust relationship that exists regardless of how centralised or trustless a protocol is. I still don't see why it's bad for a protocol to be trustless.

Who knows what works for the internet? It's still pretty new.

But you have to trust the developers somewhat anyway. The difference is that with a centralised or federated protocol you have to trust developers plus server admins whereas with a P2P (or to some degree otherwise key-based) protocol you just have to trust developers.
Put that way it's obvious which is better.

If "trustless" offends you, how about a different word. How about "trust-minimising"?

Isn't that what you wanted though?