📅 August 19 - August 25 | Fediverse governance and a scorpion

Good morning from a frighteningly quiet Caribbean in terms of hurricane activity. Looking at the previsions, that is about to change over the coming week or two as we head into the statistically peak hurricane activity period.

Here on the internet, there are no seasons, just waves and waves and never-ending waves of innovation, development, and more. For me, three interesting developments on the web merit a little discussion and sharing. One is about the name of the Fediverse—something that is presently misunderstood, too technical, too “techie.” The second is about the governance of such systems, given their federated and distributed nature, and the third is about the inclusion/exclusion of the current tech giants from the Social Web.

Firstly, the term “Fediverse” is a portmanteau of two words: federation and universe. I can’t definitively say when this term was coined and first used, but it has become the standard term to describe federated and open-source protocols used in products such as Mastodon, Bluesky (sort of), Pixelfed, and Peertube. The application list is growing, as is the user base of many of these applications.

But as is often the case, most used terms are not particularly descriptive enough of the technology’s accurate meaning and actual use. There’s a growing voice advocating using a different term than Fediverse to represent better what Mastodon, etc., provides in applications and services. Many involved in the indie web use the Social Web to indicate what the Fediverse is trying. I think this term is a bit better, and I like the idea behind the web in the first place. I think Fediverse is a little alienating and too “techie” for most. Ask people around you what the Fediverse is or what it does, and you’ll get differing responses. Some will say it has something to do with the Feds, the Multiverse, or even the Metaverse. “Social Web” is succinct and descriptive.

Which makes me think about the use of the internet and particularly the social web in the Caribbean. So far, I haven’t encountered any instances of Mastodon or anything similar. It seems that we in the Caribbean are content with the offerings of the huge tech companies that provide people with a just-good-enough service to prevent them from leaving, despite it being an icky experience for many. The last statistics I had showed that once a user got on the Internet in the Caribbean, they would sign up for some Social Networking platform, usually one that is Meta (nee Facebook) owned: Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp. With WhatsApp being the most popular, despite it not really being a social network —it’s a messaging app. Have I missed something? If you know of any Social Web (Fediverse) projects, let me know by replying to this email.

Fediverse terminology aside, I’ve been following a project about the governance and moderation of various Fediverse (social web) platforms since its start. In fact, it inspired me to write the blog posts to accompany our own project request with Stanford, which was ultimately rejected, sadly.

The project aimed to answer the following research question: “What are the most effective governance and administration models/structures in place on medium-to-large-sized Fediverse servers, and what infrastructural gaps (human and digital) persist?”

The project has now produced its final report. Although I haven’t read it yet, the findings go into a lot of detail about moderation, leadership when running an instance, federated diplomacy, and the tools required for this. If anyone is interested in starting an instance of something like Mastodon, then I think you should give this report a look over. The main areas discussed are about the governance structures to put into place, what it is you’re trying to achieve with an instance of a Social Web product/platform, how to moderate and what to build as a team to do that work, including the community of users (something big tech should learn about), all the way to legal liabilities, something that can’t be ignored.

Lastly, I wanted to discuss my feelings about the Social Web federation and where it relates to the services offered by the big tech platforms. Off the bat, and if this isn’t clear to you, I have a lot of issues with Facebook and other similar platforms, mostly about their incentives related to advertising and how those incentives are feeling a dangerous lurch to a more authoritarian political landscape. Oh, and the genocide they have sponsored … But. But, I will defend the right of all platforms to decide whether or not to federate with Facebook through their Threads federation projects. I will also defend Facebook’s right to pursue such projects. Where I diverge from some is my opinion on what Facebook is trying to do. I do not believe for an instant that this is benevolent inclusion in a powerful competitor and, some would say, a threat to the existence of Instagram and other advertising systems. To explain what I mean, let me recount the fable of the scorpion and the frog.

The fable starts with the scorpion on the bank of a river wanting to cross, but the scorpion can’t swim. With a frog nearby, the scorpion asks the frog if it can carry itself on its back. To which the frog points out that the scorpion will sting it, ultimately killing it. The scorpion retorts that it couldn’t do such a thing as it would indeed kill itself in the process, so the frog should rest assured of its safety. The frog considers the proposition and then accepts to carry the scorpion on its back. Halfway across the river, the scorpion stings the frog anyway, ending both their lives. With its last breath, the frog asks the scorpion why it stung, given the consequences. The scorpion simply replied, “I’m sorry, I couldn’t resist. It’s in my nature”.

Facebook will take, steal, profile, and hoard data insecurely, putting us all at risk. They have knowinglysold nazi ads, aided child abuse, provided tools to commit genocideand many other vile things. They ultimately strangle anything they touch, like the Social Web (Fediverse). It’s in their nature.

Reading

I’m in deep on the Internet Governance track, continuing to read Anu Bradford’s book Digital Empires: The Global Battle to Regulate Technology. I’ve linked to it before, but it’s worth linking again.

As I read it, I thought of the terrible takes several tech pundits (primarily based in the US) are having about the effect of the DSA on companies like Apple. A certain, shall we say, Apple Fanboy population is losing their minds about how there is finally a regulatory body taking on and winning against the company. I shall not name names, but one prominent blogger would do well to read the above book and perhaps travel outside the country to gain a better perspective and knowledge of the world.

If you thought the Disney corporation was all nice and cosy, producing fun light entertainment, perhaps it’s time to reevaluate that. Recently, a visitor to one of its parks died after an allergic reaction to food served in one of the restaurants onsite. It seems Disney was clearly at fault, which will finally be decided in the courts through a wrongful death lawsuit. But that didn’t stop them from trying to maggot their way out of responsibility and liability. How? Because the widower had once signed up for a Disney+ trial. He wasn’t even a paying subscriber, but the clauses of that trial exonerated Disney from all evil, even forcing the user to waive the right to trial. They relented, but only after a nasty backlash, providing a clearly BS and insulting comment.

Things need to change on the Internet.

I’m a little late posting this to the web, but it’s here now 😀 The newsletter version will go out as usual on Tuesday morning. Have a great week.