Let’s look at the PDF
This thread and our failing in general in “governance” is to do with the fluffy and spiky debate, or much more obviously the failing of this debate to actually be held in place.
“Potential benefits of the fediverse are at risk of being subverted, either by commercial
competitors or through structural dysfunction.”
Dealing with both commercial and structural dysfunction here.
Commercial - funding has shifted from distributed to centralized over the last few years, this is driving core dysfunctions - interesting and useful subject to discus.
Structural - we have not moved anywhere towards “native” governance approaches, this is building crises Legitimacy (political) - Wikipedia
“hold promise as human-scale, democratically-run platforms for civil discourse within and between these groups of users.”
We aspire to this, but with no democracy in any formal or informal sense. And secondly we lack “groups of users” as the coding being copies of #dotcons are strongly “individualized” which pushed our #mainstreaming “common sense” over this openweb “native” space.
"challenges inherent to distributed governance, commercial platform capture, inclusive
access, moderation at scale, reputational assaults by commercial competitors, and the tacitly
neoliberal techno-Romanticism familiar from previous digital innovations. "
The is a long working (activist) history of mediating these problems that we are ignoring here. A first step to addressing this is the fluffy spiky debate being held in place #KISS
“Developers, entrepreneurs, institutions, and users of these technologies
must also work collectively and proactively to help the fediverse avoid these historical threats
and maximize its civic potential.”
This is the bit we need to talk more about, as it’s key to not fucking up agen.
"However, the fediverse is more than a technical system; it is also a political structure (Mansoux
& Roscam Abbing, 2020). "
On this currently, we are seeing Legitimacy (political) - Wikipedia failing.
“the structure of platform governance and moderation is both reflective of and integral to the
functioning of democratic processes in digital networks, and much of the proverbial “devil in the
details” comes down to arcane and obscure questions about transparency, control, and
information flow at any given chokepoint or sociotechnical layer.”
This is why link to the #4opens, and it’s use to judge if a project or group are “native” or not - to make transparent in groups and most impotently OUT-GROUPS. A technical/social membrane, as this quote say "devil in the details”
“1. Distributed governance failures
Previous decentralized social platforms have sometimes failed to deliver on their civic potential
because of challenges emerging from the governance process: the norms, institutions, and
technologies that determine who gets to say what to whom, under which circumstances,”
This is the subject of responses to this thried, illustrating the issues, so think of it as the spiky in the fluffy spiky debate. Notice, we are currently failing to hold this debate in place.
“it introduces other risks that must be addressed and mitigated, including new threats such as accountability and liability crises, forking… Corporate actors may also exploit these challenges, by posing themselves as solutions to distributed governance frictions (Marshall, 2006).”
This is likely in part one of the underling issues we are not talking about here.
“Examples of distributed platforms falling prey to these governance challenges in the past are
legion”
We have much to learn and address on this, I talk about this a lot as it’s a key subject we need to move away from “common sense” approaches. Yes this is seen as spiky, but it’s needed, let’s hold this debate open please.
OK, I could go on, but maybe that is good for now.