(mbin) mechanism needed for users to block whole instances, not just magazines

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.

You're viewing a single thread.

9 comments

Let me clarify that Lemmy very much has a global feed of all instances your instance hasn't defederated, and at least one user of your instance has come in contact with.
Also, ???
This is the fediverse, why would those non commercial instances be a problem for you? Because they have too many users? Is decentralization for you not having any real traffic?
- Let me clarify that Lemmy very much has a global feed of all instances
  Oh, indeed. I just noticed Lemmy’s choice between subscribed, local, all, and moderated views. Subscribed is the default and that’s what I’ve always used. If I choose the global view, it’s indeed the same problem as mbin (users can only block on a per-community basis). ~~Mbin offers only the global view on the non-community-specific timeline.~~ (edit: actually it’s like Lemmy; there are different views to choose from, but global is the default)
  This is the fediverse,
  Exactly. It’s a platform designed for decentralisation. It attracts users who advocate more balance of power and more control by users.
  why would those non commercial instances be a problem for you?
  The fediverse was constructed with a broader vision. It’s not simply a narrow effort to avoid commercialization. Facebook Threads proves that if the fedi’s sole goal were to avoid commercialization, it would have been a failure.
  Because they have too many users? Is decentralization for you not having any real traffic?
  Perversely disportionate ~~traffic~~ concentration of control is obviously what the federated design was motivated to avoid. Otherwise, Twitter’s premium service is for you. Many inbound refugees came from Reddit, which suffers from the sharpest abuses of power I’ve ever experienced. They aren’t running from ads. They are fleeing from disempowerment. Of course the ones who have fled into another centralised node have naïvely just swapped one power imbalance for another, pawning themselves to a different master, while making themselves part of the same social problem.
  
  I like the idea of blocking or unblocking whole instances.
  That said, I agree with commenter above you: I don't see an issue with large instances. I value having a bunch of different options, and we do have a bunch of different options. Running an instance yourself requires a fair amount of work, so I'm glad to have others willing to take it on.
  If anything, on the subject of control, I like the model of social.coop over on mastodon where users can vote on direction and volunteer. It's also more formally funded by user donation (you have to set up a contribution to create an account) vs instances which are funded by donation but it's kind of whoever decides to chip in.
  
  I don’t see an issue with large instances. I value having a bunch of different options, and we do have a bunch of different options.
  Having 7 disproportionately giant instances all centralised under the same oppressive corporation is not “a bunch of different options”. More than half the threadiverse is controlled by a single corporate power-abusing gatekeeper. The greed of the people farming ensures you have fewer options because it makes ghost towns out of instances that could have been great. Many good themed instances never got traction and pulled the plug. For example:
  community.xmpp.net ← was a whole instance dedicated to XMPP discussion
  links.esq.social ← was a whole instance dedicated to discussions about law
  nano.garden ← was a whole instance dedicated to discussions about nano cryptocurrency
  lemmy.globe.pub ← was a whole instance dedicated to discussions about travel
  wayfarershaven.eu ← not sure if they were themed on travel or general purpose
  These are great options that we lost because of foolish over-crowding on general purpose giants. If you put a McDonalds on every single street corner, that’s a lot of real estate that cannot be used by more creative restaraunts. Imagine if McDonalds was general, and had a huge menu (Chinese food, Mexican, Italian, French, Indian, etc). And there are no Indian or French restaurants in town but the McDs on every street corner has Indian and French cuisine. Are you happy with your options?
  
  General purpose nodes is not great from an organizational standpoint. We have ~15+ “privacy” communities because every general purpose node created one. Are there 15 significantly different rule sets that makes it sensible to have that much division?
  Running an instance yourself requires a fair amount of work
  Your choices are:
  ① self host
  ② use a decentralised host in the free world
  ③ use a centralised host in Cloudflare’s exclusive walled garden
  Nixing ① does not imply ③.
  If anything, on the subject of control, I like the model of social.coop over on mastodon where users can vote on direction and volunteer.
  That is meaningless with Cloudflare nodes, because no one can vote to make Cloudflare inclusive. Suppose 100% of voters say CGNAT users should get access. There is no way to force Cloudflare to change their policy.
  
  What would be an acceptable outcome for you? Instances close because people stop running them, not because other larger instances exist. Ultimately people vote with their feet, so if you want to see more smaller instances they need to become more appealing than large ones.
  Also not sure what you mean by seven instances under one corporation? Are you talking about cloudflare or are you saying they're all run by the same entity?
  I don't like Amazon. Why do people use it? Because it's convenient, it has the stuff they're looking for, and it has that stuff at low prices. If we want people to use an alternative, we won't do it by trying to guilt them to use a more expensive and inconvenient option. To change the status quo Amazon can get hit with antitrust law and prosocial regulation, and/or a more competitive but employee/member controlled entity can be created.
  That's why I like the social.coop model. Not saying it has no issues or will be around forever, but it's important for us to be able to get big while still maintaining democratic governance. A self hosted instance will never be as competitive as one with many users. The per user cost goes down the more users there are, and the network effect means more users will go towards bigger instances. So fine, let an instance get big, but let it be democratically controlled and funded.
  
  What would be an acceptable outcome for you?
  You seem to be asking for a book here. The requested feature is just one facet of a multifaceted problem -- to diminish the centralisation problem. One specific benefit we get from this one feature is the ability to get rid of the exclusive content that pollutes the timeline. Part of living in the free world is getting the non-free world out of the way. I need a view of the free world showing only venues where I am not excluded.
  Instances close because people stop running them, not because other larger instances exist.
  These two reasons are intertwined in a causal relationship.
  Ultimately people vote with their feet, so if you want to see more smaller instances they need to become more appealing than large ones.
  That’s not the only way. The small instances are buried in litter. Clearing the litter out of the way is a much simpler and much more effective way to see the smaller instances.
  Also not sure what you mean by seven instances under one corporation? Are you talking about cloudflare or are you saying they’re all run by the same entity?
  All seven instances are Cloudflare-centralised. They all give CF a view of all traffic (public and private) and they all arbitrarily discriminate against the same demographics of people. If you are denied access to one of them, you are denied access to all of them. Exceptionally, programming .dev has whitelisted Tor. But that’s just one demographic; that instance still blocks all the other demographics excluded by Cloudflare’s blockade. So users are all being controlled by the same entity.
  I don’t like Amazon. Why do people use it? Because it’s convenient, it has the stuff they’re looking for, and it has that stuff at low prices. If we want people to use an alternative, we won’t do it by trying to guilt them to use a more expensive and inconvenient option.
  You seem to be claiming boycotts do not work, IIUC. When it became widely known that McDonalds was giving free meals to Israeli soldiers, high numbers of people gave up the convenience and pricing that attracted them to McDs. McDs is a franchise, so different shops have different owners. McDs was forced to directly buy all the shops owned by the Israli who was giving away free meals, just to cancel that policy, just to protect the McDs brand.
  Of course there are always unethical consumers. Some consumers continued eating McDs non-stop. Ethical consumers have integrity, a spine/constitution, and they practice it. They should be equipped to empower their ethical choices.
  
  To change the status quo Amazon can get hit with antitrust law and prosocial regulation
  I could write a book on all the reasons to boycott Amazon. Amazon exploits legal loopholes. They are organise their business to get away with murder (legally, or without detection). If you wait for regulators to find some cause to slap them on the wrist, it’d be a pitiful demonstration of non-activism. The very first best move to make is to stop being a part of the problem yourself by not feeding Amazon. From there, there are countless other activist actions you can take without just waiting for them to somehow shoot themselves in the foot.
  Be the change you want to see.
  The per user cost goes down the more users there are, and the network effect means more users will go towards bigger instances. So fine, let an instance get big, but let it be democratically controlled and funded.
  The best thing you can do is walk away from the instance, not feed it or participate in any way. AFAIK, none of the seven have this democratic structure. But if they did, it’s still a harmful force because you still have a centralised policy that affects a disproportionate number of people and which also keeps smaller instances small.
  
  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.
  
  I can see that you’re upset about cloudfare being forced on anyone using the large instances.
  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.
  
  You’re right that the large instances are not democratically governed,
  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.
  But more importantly, most people just aren’t going to do 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.
  
  The solution should be addressed at a system and process level, not by relying on people making personal choices.
  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.
  But again, what I’m driving at is let’s get big, but do so democratically.
  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.
  ::: spoiler 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.
  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.
  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).
  Sure, we can boycott mcdonalds, but we’re essentially begging them to make a change.
  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.
  
  I'm on lemmy.world because the first two instances I used disappeared. It has all the features I want and I've only had one or two connection issues with it...so why change?
  I did make an account on another one because I liked the URL but I figured out why .world blocked a few instances when on the FIRST POST I clicked I found a prolific commenter who signed every post "Death to America". Call it an echo chamber, but I can live without interacting with people like that.
  The personal benefit of decentralization is that I can change instances any time I want to. The broader benefit is that anyone can change instances when they want to and no one corporation controls it. If lemmy.world died tomorrow, I'd carry on using the fediverse somewhere else. Not a big deal.

9 comments