I have complicated feelings about the idea that the Fediverse should be serving as a new home for people fleeing other platforms.

On the one hand, in a vacuum, I agree that from a technical/governance perspective it would be a significant improvement, and there is a real societal problem with people staying on Facebook/Twitter etc. as they are increasingly turned into fascist platforms.

On the other hand, *in practice*, what's effectively being proposed is to bestow the responsibility of handling the world's communication and social spaces, upon a group of mainly marginalized folks, who mostly just wanted to build their own corner and didn't ask for any of this.

I'm not comfortable with that dynamic, and it registers to me as belonging in the category of 'lateral violence'. Just because marginalized folks are the closest people who will listen, doesn't automatically make them responsible for solving the world's problems. Why are more privileged folks not expected to take this responsibility?

@joepie91 I've also got a pragmatic concern that a load of "normies" (and/or minor celebrity types) could simply overwhelm a lot of servers with extra costs and moderation burdens (including people doing such things that get the cops/feds asking for data from servers such as bragging about drugs use etc (marginalised folk are generally more discreet about what they post online as they have grown up having to dodge various forms of authority).

I also remember when Greta Thunberg joined Fedi and the Swedish lads who ran the instance she joined were (part jokingly, but with some truth) saying "RIP our server" as it nearly crashed, although she doesn't seem to actively use Fedi much any more (maybe due to perceived lack of "numbers / engagement").

There's also too many normies who walk away from online communities when there isn't enough conflict/drama as they consider it to be "debate" (I've seen this happen with well run forums related to the rave scene as long ago as 90s/00s)

@joepie91
This opens up a couple of ideas I have been mulling over since becoming more active on the fediverse.

I find there to be a rough symmetry with the motivations of multiple classes of fediverse admins to a generally socialist or specifically third-worldist understanding of how people are motivated toward building revolutionary infrastructure.
Those that replicate the patterns of capitalist social media are themselves the most privileged, --

1/7

@joepie91 "the Fediverse should be serving as a new home for people fleeing other platforms" just strikes me as a fundamentally incomplete thought

like, yes, this is great, but what instances specifically? just saying "the Fediverse" is not an actionable or meaningful suggestion--we all know open-regs instances Do Not Work, so ... who's going to run these instances?

(best answer I can think of is "public libraries" but I haven't seen this actually tried so far)

@vfrmedia @joepie91 From what I've heard from better-known people who have attempted to join the fediverse the problem is the opposite of what you describe. It isn't lack of engagement, it's that the harassment they often face, especially if they have enemies like Greta Thunberg does, is intense, moderators can't keep up, and Mastodon doesn't have the tools some other platforms have to control the fire hose. The famous person can mute threads but then their followers see all of the noise.

@joepie91
-- or self identify with capitalist privilege. These are the instances focused on growth, onboarding, automated moderation etc.
Those that are most affected by the structural failings of capitalist social media are most interested in building something new and better, the instances pushing for hands on and proactive moderation, better visibility settings, careful and measured expansion that keeps people safe.

2/7

@not2b @joepie91 Unfortunately I don't know much Swedish nor have contact with the admins of that instance she used so am not sure what she was facing, although it might well be they got loads of reports and Greta agreed to use Fedi less to avoid overwhelming the instance admins (which would tie in with her ethos of encouraging sustainable use of resources)

@joepie91
Essentially, the most marginalized are the most structurally motivated to build something revolutionary.

3/7

@joepie91
There is also a way I think this analysis/symmetry falls apart, I am not conviced that software shaped like social media as we currently understand it is actaually that revolutionary or liberatory. The enablement of surveillence and data collection, data enclosure even, is not just a design aspect of specific software, but a fundemental assumption at many layers of the software and hardware stack.

4/7

@joepie91
Undermining this is not just changing a few features, but rebuilding large parts of web and internet infrastructure. There is little to no social institutions prepared to do this either. We are just barely moving past the optimist capitalist libertarian fantasies of the free software movement, and still hardly able to comprehend writing software as labor which could be organized.

5/7

@joepie91
Additionally I have a pet peeve with the terminology of "fleeing" and "refugee" when it comes to which software and services people use. The places where we can choose to use different software and services are not equivalent to physical spaces, so it seems quite insulting to use the same words as those physically displaced, made homeless, or made stateless.

6/7

@joepie91
In some ways I think using the fediverse right now is similar to buying green/sustainable/healthy/marginalized-idenity-owned products. Better by specific and measurable metrics, but not something revolutionary that undermines the capitalist/imperialist/surveillance state/enterprise. We don't tear down the marketplace by choosing a different experience product.

7/7

@joepie91 The Good thing is.... On the fediverse I can still have my small little corner and community without any care what happens on bigger instances.