Discussion
Loading...

Post

Log in
  • About
  • Code of conduct
  • Privacy
  • Users
  • Instances
  • About Bonfire
Ulrike Hahn
Ulrike Hahn
@UlrikeHahn@fediscience.org  ·  activity timestamp 6 days ago

posts about ICE and Bluesky today illustrate a deep issue about how we design tools…

online, we typically engage with *sources* not specific content - - going to a webpage, shows you whatever content currently is there

- following someone on social media, we see whatever they post

- merely being on a platform with algorithmic content promotion means you see whatever they want you to see, that is, potentially the platform in its entirety is the “active channel”

this makes one’s ability to select and restrict channels the most fundamental design feature there can be:

so it matters whether I can only restrict a specific source or also a *source of sources*…

(blocking a server includes future accounts yet to be created, block lists of individual accounts that I can import do not etc.)

….there are fundamental design choices here that have some relationship to centralization vs. “decentralization” but they’re not fully captured by that distinction, even though they really matter to our experience

the rather reductive way we’ve conducted debate about “decentralization” has obscured that a little, I think

  • Copy link
  • Flag this post
  • Block
william.maggos
william.maggos
@wjmaggos@liberal.city replied  ·  activity timestamp 6 days ago

@UlrikeHahn

I think I agree but we're coming to different conclusions re blocking bluesky so obviously not. if connecting to bluesky would mean that they force me to see lots of stuff I didn't ask for, I'd oppose connecting to them. like I do troll servers here. but until accounts there tag me often, this isn't an issue. I follow who I want there and will probably never see an ICE account post unless somebody I follow wants to rally support against the horrible thing they posted.

  • Copy link
  • Flag this comment
  • Block
Ulrike Hahn
Ulrike Hahn
@UlrikeHahn@fediscience.org replied  ·  activity timestamp 6 days ago

@wjmaggos I guess what we disagree on is how important the bits are, to us, that we don’t see, and how important are other considerations that go beyond merely the content of what we view

(such as privacy or feelings about Bluesky PLC etc.)

  • Copy link
  • Flag this comment
  • Block
william.maggos
william.maggos
@wjmaggos@liberal.city replied  ·  activity timestamp 5 days ago

@UlrikeHahn

maybe but I don't like bluesky. I'd rather they cease to exist and everybody there move here. I have questions about why they chose their model when AP already existed and was proven. I say this all the time.

but if they were gone, many people would go to the other bad places. I'd be even less able to interact with them. and I'd support a Trump admin and a MAGA fedi server if they didn't harass people on other servers (hard to believe it could happen).

trying to be useful/honest.

  • Copy link
  • Flag this comment
  • Block
Ulrike Hahn
Ulrike Hahn
@UlrikeHahn@fediscience.org replied  ·  activity timestamp 5 days ago

@wjmaggos I think I have more positive views on ATproto (and Bluesky the network) than you (which makes this exchange all the more surprising…). I think there are genuinely groups and communicative functions for which that design works well (or might even be essential..)

I just don’t want online communication to be reduced to that model and I wouldn’t, personally, start building from there…

To give just one example: account and data portability is an issue people care about, but, to me personally, it’s not one I’d ever care about enough that it would justify the cost of making everything fundamentally public by design…

  • Copy link
  • Flag this comment
  • Block

bonfire.cafe

A space for Bonfire maintainers and contributors to communicate

bonfire.cafe: About · Code of conduct · Privacy · Users · Instances
Bonfire social · 1.0.2-alpha.2 no JS en
Automatic federation enabled
Log in
  • Explore
  • About
  • Members
  • Code of Conduct