 5 years ago, some of the Press were hostile towards the idea of the Fediverse. From their perspective, social networks needed more centralization, not less. It needed more cultural gatekeepers. It needed reputable Blue Check profiles that were privileged by algorithms. The problem: what happens when a malicious party buys the social networks -- and thus controls the flow of information? Well, now we know! 16 comments
@atomicpoet good point there, makes me also wonder how is the fediverse monitored by governments? Also - Vancouver! I’m a displaced Vancouverite in the US. The Press should be the biggest cheerleaders of the Fediverse because the Press, itself, works best in a decentralized environment. Journalism works best when everyone is accountable to each other. How is there accountability when one corporation decides what gets to be seen? @atomicpoet and because getting away from the pay-to-play presentation system from a lot of social media platforms. @atomicpoet I was just thinking about this-amazing what dishwashing does for idea generation-I except in short order news orgs will set up their own instances for their journalists & headlines. It will be back to where the official word comes from the official site. Which is a good thing for news I think. No relying on another platform for your reach. @trishussey Thank you! I've been suggesting this for years, and the notion has fallen on deaf ears. Truth is, Big Social have screwed over journalism by monopolizing the distribution of news. How to take it back? By running your own instances, and verifying on your domains. In this way, you take back not just distribution of news, but also ownership of your work! This is critical for the future of journalism. @atomicpoet This is very unfair. There's a whole variety, like I think at least 3 or 4 billionaire white male oligarchs! @atomicpoet Agree completely on gatekeepers being captured by malicious actors. However, I do think the issue of identification in journalism is important. Journalists and news media depend on their credibility. As do we. And that IDing should be fairly idiot-proof. Not sure there is a solution but it would be nice if there was one. @johnwehrle Identity is a different nut to crack. Green checks are better than Twitter's old blue checks, but what we need even more is a complete re-evaluation of online identity—one that can't be owned by any corporate entity. @atomicpoet @johnwehrle an organization can set up its own instance and then let their employees be the only people on the instance which effectively verifies those people as members of the organization. The best part is if they decide to leave the organization and go elsewhere they get to keep all their own data and profile but can join a different organization and join their instance.  @atomicpoet centralization is extremely dangerous. It creates a single point of failure. Any systems architect knows that. The big corps like to pretend that what they do require centralization, and though there are naturally centralized tasks (like search), for the most part, this is simply not true. There is nothing in publishing that mathematically requires centralization @drq @atomicpoet 💯 astounding we don’t talk about single point of failure more often. (Probably cause it’s nerd talk…) |
Gregory's Server
@atomicpoet
I think the destruction is still unfolding so we haven't seen the endgame yet.