Twitter and Mastodon: The Ideological Problems of the Fediverse

I've done my time and then some on Usenet. If learning to moderate online forums is like studying trolls and demons, then hanging out on Usenet is like living in Sunnydale: if you survive long enough, you'll eventually come up against one of every kind of monster – and after a while, your reaction will change to “Bored now.” – Teresa Nielsen Hayden

The Fediverse is a decentralized network made up of a large number of semi-independent nodes. Any resemblance to the political order established by United States constitution is not at all a coincidence – it takes serious study and effort to create political ideas, and even then people have to be persuaded to adopt them. Much easier to fall back on things already known. And, it has exactly the problems of constitutional federations on the US model worldwide. In US politics, there has been a race to the bottom in local jurisdictions. Commercial corporations go to Delaware for a liberal regulatory environment. Businesses go to anti-worker states for cheap labor. Firearms go from states where their purchase is easy to states where it is not. And so on, and on. Without strong federal authority, there is nothing to stop these abuses.

The Fediverse is as it is because of a number of ideological choices justified by “freedom.” Freedom of speech. Freedom of the press. In many respects the Fediverse is better than might be feared; the management of major sites is so far fairly decent. It helps that the mother site is in Germany, where Nazi content is specifically outlawed. But there are also numerous bad actors, and numerous sites run by bad actors, and by design there is no way to completely shut them out. So long as they are polite, the Fediverse enables their abuses.

“You have to ignore their reasonable arguments because their end goal is to be terrible, awful people.” – a bartender in Baltimore

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Richard M. Stallman and the Failure of the Free Software Foundation

(Note: since the writing of the following, the Free Software Foundation has tweeted: “The FSF board unanimously condemns misogyny, racism, and other bigotry as well as defamation, intimidation, and unfair attacks on free thought and speech.” They are rejecting the criticism of Stallman as unfair and, in so doing, they aligned themselves with neo-Nazis and white supremacists. They have put themselves beyond redemption and any fair hearing for their ideas. No-one wants to listen to the logic-chopping of rape apologists – it is as bad as listening to Southern racists excusing slavery.)   This is outside of my usual ambit, and it is about cooperative software development rather than market economics, but it seems to belong here more than anywhere. People who follow free and open source software by now know that alleged harasser and rape apologist Richard M. Stallman has, by a secret process, been restored to the board of directors of the Free Software Foundation. Stallman has lon
Read more

The General Intelligence of Robots

“Artificial intelligence” researchers mean by the phrase “general intelligence” two things. One is simply a machine learning system that can, like humans, use its knowledge for many different tasks. This is not something that has currently been built; language models produce language, stable diffusion models produce images, and neither seem to have any concepts of the underlying realities these words and images reflect. The second is the “general intelligence,” g , derived from intelligence tests, which is believed by some to be a unifying reality behind intelligence test scores. In a paper on GPT-4 from Microsoft a Wall Street Journal Editorial by Linda Gottfredson, Mainstream Science on Intelligence is cited as providing a definition of general intelligence. It’s an appalling piece, repeating debunked claims about racial differences in intelligence and claiming as scientific consensus hypotheses that are at best debatable and at worst outright false.
Read more

A Grand Unified Theory of Bad New Economy Firms

The wildly successful internet economy firms mostly operate by evading laws. New technology which has allowed firms to move their business to less-regulated jurisdictions and a generation of deregulation and favorable court decisions have allowed these firms to be bad places to work and bad places to do business with. Here’s a catalog of some of their abuses: Evasion of local laws through national operations . Amazon notoriously picks jurisdictions with lax labor laws for its warehouses. Uber simply ignores local laws until penalized. When penalized, they initiate political campaigns to get the laws overridden at the state level. Extortionate business practices . Doordash infamously underpays its workers. Grubhub notoriously overcharges restaurants . Uber has the resurrected long-illegal practice of raising taxi rates when demand is highest. Monopolistic practices . Enforcement in this
Read more