Those who condemn centralised social media naturally block these nodes:
- #LemmyWorld
- #shItjustWorks
- #LemmyCA
- #programmingDev
- #LemmyOne
- #LemmEE
- #LemmyZip
The global timeline is the landing page on Mbin nodes. It’s swamped with posts from communities hosted in the above shitty centralised nodes, which break interoperability for all demographics that Cloudflare Inc. marginalises.
Mbin gives a way for users to block specific magazines (Lemmy communities), but no way to block a whole node. So users face this this very tedious task of blocking hundreds of magazines which is effectively like a game of whack-a-mole. Whenever someone else on the Mbin node subscribes to a CF/centralised node, the global timeline gets polluted with exclusive content and potentially many other users have to find the block button.
Secondary problem: (unblocking)
My blocked list now contains hundreds of magazines spanning several pages. What if LemmEE decides one day to join the decentralised free world? I would likely want to stop blocking all communities on that node. But unblocking is also very tedious because you have to visit every blocked magazine and click “unblock”.
the fix
① Nix the global timeline. Lemmy also lacks whole-node blocking at the user level, but Lemmy avoids this problem by not even having a global timeline. Logged-in users see a timeline that’s populated only with communities they subscribe to.
«OR»
② Enable users to specify a list of nodes for which they want filtered out of their view of the global timeline.
I can see that you’re upset about cloudfare being forced on anyone using the large instances. And all things being equal I’d prefer that users weren’t forced to accept that choice too. You’re right that the large instances are not democratically governed, that’s what I was driving at. I don’t think the solution is steering people to small or self hosted instances. Any small instance if successful will become a large instance that by default is controlled by one person or a small group. But more importantly, most people just aren’t going to do that. The solution should be addressed at a system and process level, not by relying on people making personal choices. Personal choices are important, and significant social movements typically start with a small group of people taking a harder path and advocating change. I’m not poo-pooing boycotts and things like that, and education/awareness is important too. But again, what I’m driving at is let’s get big, but do so democratically. It’s great to have our little corner of the world that’s sun and roses, but as long as there are giants roaming around we’re at their whim and will eventually get stepped on. Sure, we can boycott mcdonalds, but we’re essentially begging them to make a change. What if we could demand it by right, because we own it? That’s what I’d like to see, cooperatives everywhere, that can compete on equal footing with corporations.
This implies some kind of emotional drive and disregards the nuts and bolts of the actual problem. The breakage that manifests makes the fedi less usable and more exclusive, which the design rightfully tries to avoid but falls short. CF being pushed on ppl using large instances is not at all the issue. That’s self-inflicted harm. Cloudflare and big instances both independently pose a centralization problem which can easily be condemned together. Neither form of centralisation benefits the fedi. The fact that CF-centralised nodes and disproportionately large nodes tend to be the same nodes is the universe organising the garbage together – like when Bayar and Monsanto merged. Easier to deal with the baddies when they are consolidated.
lemmy.ml less trivial
The lemmy.ml instance is less trivial because it’s disproportionately large, but they shrunk a bit and ditched Cloudflare. They bring a lot of political baggage, but they are also said to be less tyrannical than they were in the past. So what how to treat lemmy.ml is questionable and messy.
Yes but to be clear, governance is your focus not mine. I’m saying centralized instances are detrimental no matter how they are governed. If they are well-governed then you might say they are more likely to be decentralized, but then of course users could decide to unblock them if they achieve that.
This is more of the “people don’t boycott” logic. First of all, the perception that people do not boycott does not justify stripping people of their power to boycott. The feature I propose gives people boycott power. And not only that, it gives them a way to function – a way to get the exclusive junk and broken images off their screen.
how my Twitter boycott paid off
I was on Twitter long before elon took it, and before phone numbers were required. When Twitter started demanding a mobile phone number from me, I walked. Boycotted. Not long after that I got news that Twitter was caught selling users’ personal data which was inconsistent with the privacy policy. Then shortly after that announcement, it was announced that cybercriminals breached Twitter and stole people’s personal info anyway. My boycott was not emotion driven. It was me making a calculated decision not to trust Twitter with my profitable data, and me deciding not to help Twitter profit from their policy of exclusion (people denied access who do not have mobile phones). And it was the right move. It paid off in the form of not being a victim. I’m grateful that I had boycott power. If boycott power is available but underutilized, the idiots who don’t use it can blame themselves.
This is a bit false dichotomy-ish. People should be empowered with agency to control their own interactions. That empowerment does not obviate system-wide improvements. It complements them.
It’s defeatist. To grow disproportionately is to be centralised. Good governance is useless if it fails to prevent centralization. Maybe good governance can lead to a detrimentally centralised instance splitting into many decentralised instances, at which point those nodes are participating in the free world.
If some giant node organises a democratic process, it’s not for me or anyone to stop them. The feature I propose does not interfere with that in the slightest.
A democratic process still produces shitty results & cannot be relied on
Everyone might decide to save money and use Cloudflare anyway. It’s shocking how many people see no problem with Cloudflare. And it’s mind-boggling how selfish people can be in large numbers. Xenophobic Trump supporters shows at what great scale it can happen on. Another example: a majority of the population has a mobile phone subscription, and a majority is also not ethically opposed to tax-funded public services that exclude non-mobile subscribers (e.g. like a public library requiring SMS confirmation to use wifi). They will vote for what benefits them personally at the detriment of the minority. So if a democratically controlled service opts for Cloudflare anyway, it’s the same problem. People marginalised by Cloudflare still need tools to tailor their view to show venues where they are included.
You are literally advocating for the status quo that causes the giants to step on the rest. My searches are clobbered to a dysfunctional extent because these shitty exclusive nodes fill the top results (that’s another bug I already exposed in this community).
Not at all. Begging them to change is the position you take when you neglect to boycott – begging is the shitty option you have. I’m not begging. I walk. McDs can fuck right off. They get zero begging from me. To keep feeding McDs is to be in that disempowered defeatist position of weakness. In the case at hand, enough people made the right decision to put McDs in the begging position; begging for customers to return.