I was searching for the infosec-handbook #fediverse account (which I remember to be around here fairly well), failed and stumbled across this:
"Many Fediverse users claim to be the “better and open-minded alternative to Twitter.” We think that this doesn’t reflect reality, as explained below."
Pretty interesting and in some way conerning read.
(They're still on the web, and at least from my point of view, one of the best go-to resources for information security nowadays, one which I highly prefer to certain .... other often-cited pages mainly because they always manage to maintain a professional, neutral stance and wording in what they do, focussing on providing information and leaving conclusions up to the reader.)
@z428 the issues coverd on the page are all human problems rather than issues with the fedivers. dont be human ois not a good look ;)
@Hamishcampbell Well... yes. Of course. But I see two problems here: (a) As always, technology doesn't solve social or "human"/communication issues. And (b) more "technically", talking about aspects such as "decentralization" or "privacy", there is no silver bullet but designing solutions that meet certain requirements. Technology has to be political, but that's another aspect - if certain design decisions become ideology and can't be questioned or improved, things are probably getting worse. 😐
@z428 all code is ideaolgy set into motion - oftern for social control. Denigining this is post-modernisam, which is not a subject am a fan of, but it does underline much current "thinking" this is a problem for me. food for thought?
@Hamishcampbell I don't generally think ideology is a "bad thing", but it seems a profoundly stupid sole priority for making technical decisions. Like, "the fediverse is better / more human / ... than Twitter because it's decentralized". On that level, that's simply wrong. From a more nuanced point of view, there need to be criterias for making a qualified comparison of what's "better" and what's "worse", and much likely there are no solutions that are "absolutely" better or worse (as in ...
@Hamishcampbell ... "better or worse in any requirement one could imagine"). What happens here is simple manipulation: It's all about promoting a "better" in relation to certain requirements, all along with quietly assuming that these requirements aren't just the most important ones but the _only_ ones of relevance. This kind of discourse doesn't allow for any neutral, fact-based reasoning anymore. And this is always bad.
The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!