this post was submitted on 01 Jul 2023
365 points (97.4% liked)

Reddit Was Fun

6544 readers
1 users here now

Memorial to "rif is fun for Reddit" Android app, aka "reddit is fun", shut down after June 30, 2023

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
  1. Use distributed, federated services like Lemmy, mastodon etc.
  2. Support the hosts with our own funds.
  3. Moderate our own communities.

The second point is the most important. Reddit happened because they are a corporate entity seeking profit. Let's own our social media platforms by actively contributing funds to them.

(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Second option is difficult because there are too many instances. It is difficult to make good use of the funds as the popular instances will eventually enjoy too much profit whilst the smaller instances will be forced to shutdown due to lack of funds. This will lessen the decentralisation overtime.

The solution is a central service, something like Lemmy Fund Management or something, which regulates the funds accordingly. The managers will be selected by voting system (democracy). There are other solutions as well.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

But then the centralised service becomes a single point of failure. If you attack that one service, all instances lose their funding.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I can see that being an issue and a flaw. I think if everybody focuses on a solution, we can surely do something about it.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

I agree wholeheartedly. I am curious on how instances will deal with overfunding. And where there’s profit, there’s capitalism.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

also don't block other instances too much! I mean as long as they are bot servers that threaten the health of the network, then you have to get rid of them of course. but way too many people are getting their panties in a bunch about content they don't like, and immediately resort to the nuclear option of defederation, which is actually hurting the network and effectively splitting the user base. all these things should be blocked on a user level (by blocking specific communities, not whole instances!).

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

There are unfortunately not enough people that hold this opinion, too many are trigger happy on defederating from those they don't like.

Like you say, there can be some legitimate reasons, such as bot servers, and I would add if a big company created an instance to take it over and kill the federation.

But too many simply do it because they disagree with what the people in an instance are saying, and that hurts the federated nature of the fediverse.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

When there's an instance that doesn't want to play well with others, it's up to others to take action.

Generally, I agree, but sometimes it's going to happen. See also the great IRC split, and countless other networks prior that mostly no longer exist.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Unsure how distributed federated services prevents the reddit downfall, aside from corporate greed. Which can also be solved through legally binding agreements/foundation-controlled companies. Among many other solutions that can avoid funding, stability, and consistency issued federated services have and will continue to have.

It's all a tradeoff. To tradeoff corporate greed you now have community fragmentation and fragility risks as any instance can be taken down whenever, and any unhappy user that created communities can solely kill them off (As stated by some users threatening to do so in another thread)

#2 sounds good to say, but barely works in practice when you're talking about infrastructure costs in the tens of millions of $ per year for something at scale...

Essentially saying nice things that don't effectively translate into reality doesn't solve problems. It just perpetuates a lack of critical thinking.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

OK good point but think about your tone dude! You're coming across like you think we are stupid and I'll offer the benefit of the doubt that you don't intend that side effect.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

My tone is such that it addresses the nativity of posts like this. Especially when said nativity pushed for potentially counterproductive or harmful mindsets that prevent real solutions from being discovered.

Nativity must be addressed if hard problems are to be solved. It's a baseline.

A small slice of users are going to understand broader technological, community, funding, and survivability nuances. As such these should be explained so we're not simply hand waving necessary complexity away. Encouraging deeper discussion from others who would otherwise pass posts like these up because of the low quality.

It's the difference between talking about niceties, vs actually working towards solutions. These are hard problems, and should be recognized as hard otherwise they go unsolved.

The more readers know about the rest of the iceberg the better. The more knowledgeable folks you attract to a discussion by encouraging critical thinking the better.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›