Conversation
meta, power imbalance
Show content

I think that what bothers me about the "there's a power imbalance between who can host an instance and who can't and that's why fedi is unsustainable" argument, is that it doesn't acknowledge that *this is true for every alternative too*.

This isn't a problem of Mastodon or fedi specifically. It is a problem of technology in general, a problem that even predates computers. It holds true for any infrastructure that involves technical complexity. Once it becomes a specialization, there's a power imbalance.

Even if you just look at social media sites - how is this any different for Twitter, Cohost, and so on? There's still the same admin vs. user power imbalance, just now you don't even get to choose who is the admin, and there's no real accountability because the cost of leaving is social exclusion.

I'm not convinced that this problem (of power imbalance in technical complexity) is actually solvable, and I also don't think that it's a useful *goal* to try and solve it - it feels to me like the same old 'rugged individualism' in a new coat of progressive-sounding paint.

The more useful goal here would be to *acknowledge* that those power imbalances exist, and try to erase or at least minimize their impact through building healthy communities and trust relationships. Not by replacing it with a centralized silo that has the same problems but worse.

(And no, P2P isn't a solution either. There's still a power imbalance between developer and user there.)

3
3
0
re: meta, power imbalance
Show content

@joepie91 I agree with these points, but the problem is that those who presently have this power are really not as in to listening to marginalized peoples' discourse as much as they claim to be.

when marginalized communities embrace fedi, it's always the "death by 1000 cuts" treatment. everytime.

it's why people come, and then eventually leave.

1
0
0
re: meta, power imbalance
Show content

@joepie91 this doesn't mean that the whole thing isn't sustainable, but it does mean that the situation *as it presently is* is unsustainable for marginalized voices.

the solution is likely to make inter-instance federation one of consent, where to peer with another instance, both parties must consent to it. this of course is harder for new entrants, but ensures that participants are working together in good faith.

0
0
0
re: meta, power imbalance
Show content

@joepie91 mastodon makes the power imbalance explicit, whereas with corporate-run social media the imbalance is so intrinsic to the capitalist setting (what is water, asks the fish) that people forget it's there

0
1
0
re: meta, power imbalance
Show content
simple solution: a social network a-la- briar where the user is the host and there is no central equipment to sustain it when they go offline
1
0
0
re: meta, power imbalance
Show content

@miifox See the parenthesized note at the end of my post, this kind of "solution" is precisely why I put that there

0
0
0