Share what you want SocialHub to be

Community
21

This tension will not be solved in a short time, or maybe never, in the way fediverse evolves now, under a tech-first approach driven by app developers. There isn’t a universal wall plug into social culture, and the way we “dump” app features on-the-wire only creates a technosphere that we offer to people with “Good luck, sort it all out”. And then we can only try to retroactively make things more social. This tech-first approach is quite dogmatic and pervasive I found, and amounts to a need for Digital transformation, another one of the imho unhealthy tech trends that ails society. In my definition digital transformation boils down to:

People retroactively adjusting to accommodate rushed technology introductions. (tooted)

The technosphere focus is understandable, because if we are single individuals and our expertise is technical, where do we begin hacking away at wicked social/societal problems? The only practical/pragmatic way is to start building tech. Even when well-aware of the politics, still unable to address them, unable to become a one-man army or find constructive collaboration with those passionate for the political themes. Our chaotic grassroots environment has atrocious ability for collaboration-at-scale.

This is why Social coding commons exists: to focus on the missing social layers of the “Open social web” technology stack, and explore the field of Social experience design (SX) to elaborate development methods and best-practices to support that. Starting point are people’s Needs, and SX follows needs-based development patterns.

The technosphere is not bad. It is a requirement to serve the needs of the sociosphere. But that also sets the order in which things should be developed. The idea of the “Open social stack” is just fine and a great technology vision, as long as we realize that this is only harmonious and humane technology to the extent it serves needs and solutions in the sociosphere, where real people lead their daily lives.

Thinking about the notion of a “sociosphere”, and “missing social layers” is only a small perspective shift, yet it has big impact on how fediverse evolves..

  • In the technosphere app developers add forums, link aggregators, image and short vid posting, blogs, etc. to the fediverse.
  • In the sociosphere fedizens want to navigate with ease between intricate small community networks, find safe, inclusive and creative spaces to meet, discuss, collaborate and cocreate.

SX methodology is scoped to ecosystems and grassroots commons, and in the case of the fediverse the overarching focus for solution design would be to “Evolve the social web people Need”, which takes into account, makes practical and actionable dealing with all these political aspects that tech-first approach is unable to properly address.

1 Like
22

One reason the policy may not be popular is that it requires people to use the same policy in their own projects and make a good-faith effort to enforce it. Those who fail to do so are threatened with exclusion:

We reserve the right to exclude projects which tolerate such behaviours within their communities, or have not made a good faith effort to discourage such behaviours.

I think this part could be revised if there is an interest in creating a more welcoming environment.

23

The policy is not unpopular. The only reason we’re having this discussion is political.

SocialHub Policy Results

SQL 
SELECT
(SELECT user_count FROM groups WHERE name='trust_level_1') AS CONCERNED_USERS,
(SELECT COUNT(*) FROM users WHERE active IS TRUE AND staged IS FALSE AND last_seen_at < NOW() - INTERVAL '1 year') AS ACTIVE_CONCERNED_USERS,
(SELECT COUNT(user_id) FROM policy_users WHERE post_policy_id = 3) AS VOTED,
(SELECT COUNT(user_id) FROM policy_users WHERE post_policy_id = 3 and accepted_at IS NOT NULL and revoked_at IS NULL)  AS ACCEPTED,
(SELECT COUNT(user_id) FROM policy_users WHERE post_policy_id = 3 and revoked_at IS NOT NULL and (accepted_at IS NULL OR accepted_at < revoked_at)) AS REJECTED,
(SELECT COUNT(p.user_id) FROM policy_users p, users u WHERE p.post_policy_id = 3 and p.revoked_at IS NOT NULL and (p.accepted_at IS NULL OR p.accepted_at < revoked_at) AND p.user_id = u.id AND u.last_seen_at <  NOW() - INTERVAL '1 year' ) AS ACTIVE_REJECTED,
(SELECT COUNT(user_id) FROM policy_users WHERE post_policy_id = 3 and accepted_at IS NULL and revoked_at IS NULL) AS PENDING
concerned_users active_concerned_users voted accepted rejected active_rejected pending
604 567 339 299 30 3 0

Concerned users: @trust_level_1
Active : in the last year
Rejected : 30 records rejected (quite many duplicates, it’s actually more like 7)
Among them : 3 accounts where active in the last year (and should have been expelled).

Among these three accounts is mine: so the policy plugin is buggy and the UI does not reflect the actual state of it.

2 Likes
24

Potentially, although I think it’s probably a bit premature. First I think the key is establishing a consensus among people who are active here that this is a goal. It’s also important to come up with initial answers to a couple of key questions about direction. In particular:

  • Are questions about how to make progress on these issues across the fediverse in scope, even though they’re not protocol-related or developer focused? If not then there’s no point in doing outreach. On the other hand, if these questions are in scope, and the discussions are inclusive and well-moderated, then SocialHub can help fill what’s currently a gap, and over time that will naturally attract people here.
  • Are people from Meta welcome to participate here? If so, then it’ll probably be much harder to involve most trans, queer, and non-binary people; on the other hand, if SocialHub signs the anti-Meta FediPact then that’s a positive signal. And again, there’s an opportunity to fill a gap here – the Free Fediverse doesn’t currently have any good discussion spaces.

And since the question of whether or not to reopen the Community Values discussion now is on the table, that needs to be resolved . One of the reasons I think it would be such a mistake to reopen that discussion is that it would be happening with a relatively un-diverse participation, so could easily take a huge step backwards on this front. This very much ties in with the question of “welcoming to who?” For example, @silverpill points out that the current wording requires projects to adhere to similar values (and make a good-faith effort to discourage behviour contrary to the values) or face the risk of exclusion. Revising it would make the project more welcoming to projects that don’t share those values or aren’t discouraging bad behavior … at the expense of making the project less welcoming to marginalized people who are most frequently targeted by those bad behaviors.

25

All interesting points guys. I’m getting the sense there is not much desire to re-visit the policy of the site, which is fine. I wasn’t around for those original debates and don’t want to retread ground you’ve all already tread. I think we should leave that as-is for now then, unless someone feels strongly that is indeed a big problem / a debate worth having but I haven’t got that sense from anyone (the opposite in fact). There’s quite a few other things we can get on with in the meantime.

Indeed! I’d like to see if other folks here think having a moderator(s) / community convenors to help grow and tend the community makes some sense.

Actually @silverpill you are also someone who comes to mind in that respect. As you’ve pointed out a few times, the home page of the community could do with some more curation. Is having someone as a moderator something you feel would help in that respect (in addition to the technical fixes you listed, which I will get to starting this weekend).

I think a practical focus on things like basic topic list curation, moderation, some taxonomy updates, the day to day work of running a community, and the labor and attention that involves, would be a good common ground to start with perhaps?

26

Some people leave quietly or don’t create an account in the first place, the real sentiment is hard to measure. In any case, I think the rules could be made clearer.

Isn’t it a technical issue too? The way posts are inserted into “Latest”, it feels like a bug, because they are not addressed to any of SocialHub categories, and their authors are not members of the SocialHub community.

27

For example the two latest posts are about the same thing (and the titles are messed up):

1 Like
28

I was really glad to hear about the admin changeover, as I think this will create a more neutral space for the community to discuss what we want out of this space. For the same reason, I’m going to mostly keep on being quiet for a while, and listen most to those who post the least. But a couple of quick things, and then I’ll shut up again :smiley:

  1. Community orientation

Yes :laughing:

We do need SH to be a place that’s safe for uninhibited technical nitpicking, at the most advanced level we’re capable of. Which more socially-focused people may see as exclusive.

We also need it to be a place where we can suit up and spar about issues like SWF accepting funding from technofascist corporations, and other social issues affecting the fediverse as a social movement. Which more technically-focused people may see as OT, and best done elsewhere in the fediverse.

We need the Discourse forum and its federation practices to hold space for these different kinds of discussions, that appeal to different cross-sections of people. Helping us to quickly and easily find the parts of the forum where we can grok and contribute helpfully to the discussions.

  1. Governance practice

Nathan Schneider of social.coop offered to run a governance workshop for SH. I think that could be a good, unscary way to bring some new people into both admin and wellbeing teams.

  1. Speaking of the latter …

Perhaps it would be worth talking to IFTAS about helping to put a new wellbeing team together? This is their wheelhouse after all. Again, maybe they’d be willing to hold a workshop for people interested in helping with this in some capacity, as a low-stakes and inclusive way to get started (my opinions on the “Community Values Policy” are well-documented, so I’ll keep my hand out of that tire fire …)

2 Likes
29

We need to acknowledge that tech is political, while avoiding that the community turns into an overly ideological narrow political arena, a fight club, where otherwise value-aligned peers are turned to opponents or even enemies based on slight ideological differences. Given fedizens are the audience, we need to assure there’s tolerance for the acceptable ‘ideological bandwidth’ that corresponds to and is able to uphold healthy fediverse culture.

So where there is politics to take into account, then it should rather be consensus politics - like in the Netherlands with Polder model: described as “a pragmatic recognition of pluriformity” and “cooperation despite differences”. Rather than partisan politics - like in the US where the “center”, the middle-ground, reason and fact, have been nearly wiped out and purity spiral dynamics benefit the fascist movement, while in progressive movements “we divide ourselves to be conquered”.

What I really liked in this regard, and can be practiced at SocialHub if it wants to be more than a free-ranging fedi + AP discussion platform, is the Quaker-based model of consensus decision-making:

30

This all sounds great. Thanks for putting the time in on this.

31

The Quakers are one of the organisations and movements that I hold in the highest regard.

Any type of approach that learns from them or gains from them is a boon.

For example, this letter defending the rights of Trans inclusiveness is to me one of the great writings on policy:

https://www.quaker.org.uk/documents/re-statement-of-policy-on-provision-of-trans-inclusive-facilities

h/t Misty: "Great response here from Quakers in Britain when …" - digipres.club

It contains such eloquence regarding difference of opinion such as:

“We regret that, sadly, unanimity is not possible on this issue and kinder ground eludes us.”

h/t tef: "@misty@digipres.club "We regret that, sadly, unan…" - Mastodon

More recently, UK’s epistemic closure has had the effect of the indignity of a (Metropolitan?) Police raid in one of their centres (on non violent (women) protestors) ,… with the passive aggressive response that the building manager made tea for everybody - except the police officers.

h/t richh: "@misty@digipres.club @tef@mastodon.social In Apri…" - CupOfTea.Social

(Oh how marvelous that the last fact was relayed by such an instance name - isnt the Fediverse fun!)

1 Like
32

There’s certainly a lot to be said for a consensus approach and cooperation despite differences – although that leaves open the question of whether the underlying politics of SocialHub are anarchist or Polder-like social corporatism (which as the Wikipedia page you linked points out has “as increasingly steered in the direction of a neoliberal economic policy”) or something else.

As Seeds for Change’s Consensus Decision Making discusses, consensus requires alignment on goals (which I’m not sure we have here) and a clear process (so probably isn’t compatible with the do-ocracy approach) and can be time consuming, but as long as that’s okay with everybody it fits well with @how‘s focus on collectivity. One important point though is that as Seeds for Change points out

A group thinking process cannot work effectively unless the group is cohesive enough to generate shared attitudes and perceptions

Today, SocialHub is a long way from that – or shared goals for that matter. So if that’s the direction there’s a ways to go to get from here to there.

For those who aren’t tracking US politics, … lucky you! But since it’s come up in this thread: centrist Democrats like Gavin Newsom (California governor, currently laying the groundwork for a presidential run) are aligning with fascists in stripping rights from trans and non-binary people and unhoused people under the guise of being “bipartisan”. People I talk to in Canada and the UK say similar things are happening here. So again, I’m wary of using that as a model for SocialHub.

33

Indeed, any analogy only goes so far before it breaks. Certainly not suggesting to follow these examples to the letter, but to adopt the concept, follow it in spirit, and adjust for our purpose. SocialHub having a long way to go, gives opportunity to focus on furthering that cohesion in good balance with plurality.

What might help give guidance to this process is having a content hierarchy that offers a good breakdown into separate topical areas to find alignment. This might go hand-in-hand with similar reorganization and process alignment elsewhere to get an overall more streamlined grassroots standardization process. I am thinking of FEP process and SocialCG as first candidates here.

We talked a lot about CoC + Policy wrt SocialHub membership, but since we consider the fediverse to be our audience, allowing direct participation to any fedizen, the quest to come up with appropriate policies equates to how we’d like fediverse as a whole to be. A kind of top-level categorisation might be something like..

  1. Culture
  2. Open standards
  3. Ecosystem

I deliberately ordered them like this. Culture is about “cocreating the fediverse we NEED”. Here we tackle overarching themes of Wellbeing and safety, anti-racism, anti-fascism, etc. And can also focus on how we can shape collaborative environments that go beyond the exchange of sticky notes and articles. At Social coding commons I call this the focus on the “social experience” (SX) of the fediverse, and involves “working in commons”.

Culture → Open Standards ↔ Ecosystem

Open standards subsequently should become as much as possible in service of our cultural insights, and I am reminded here of the work of @jfinkhaeuser of Interpeer project that is doing just that on the vision of a human-centric internet.

Finally we have the grassroots and decentralized Ecosystem, where big part of the strength and resilience comes from the anarchist and chaotic cauldron of experimentation and innovation in our FOSS movement, which we should foster as our strong point. An assurance and guardian to keep things decentralized, as per our activist causes that we hold dear. Then OTOH we should look how we can turn this ecosystem creativity into a standards-based approach asap, before things turn into protocol decay and tech debt.

34

I feel the Consensus document you cite provides a strong overview of how to frame governance.

While I would normally reach towards JS Mill regarding the tyranny of majorities the pollution of Liberalism from Neoliberal schools the last two generations mean that Anarchist approaches have better flexibility (society as a living lab as it were).

Im not sure its worth taking a headcount on the number of anarchists here (Im not one, though I consider them invaluable for rehabilitating other parts of the political spectrum once they forgoe centralising and hierarchical tendencies).

Infact, to treat this as a forum in such terms is not only counterproductive for outreach and macro consensus building but potentially harmful to individuals as a consequence of prejudice.

I should repeat these concerns with regards to proactively processing users through the Community Values Policy (as beneficent as it has been written).

There are many reasons for people to be looking over their shoulder - including in democratic countries.

As a community we should not risk outing civically minded types who are suffering misfortunes of time and jurisdiction.

As a practical example, China is now exporting its firewall to pro authoritarian countries.

Among Geedge Networks’ tool, Cyber Narrator, client governments can identify individuals who accessed people who previously visited a website that only later becomes illegal (p15):

h/t David Frank: "So someone leaked a huge repo of source code and …" - Gamedev Mastodon

There have been funding cuts from USA for initiatives like the aforementioned analysis:

As such, the Fediverse may need to crowdsource more help than would be envisaged a year ago.

As such, I reiterate my point about the need to maintain as wide a net of anti-authoritarian groups as possible.

Commenting on the Polder model, I expect a lot of the subtleties come down to The Netherland’s inability for autarky (the wikipedia article references that as an inhibitor on political rigour).

As somebody trained in economics I have an allergy to autarky, as it did our forbearers no good experiencing collusion between monarchs and mercantilists.

Resisting the urge to point small handwards, its worth understanding this Dutch model and how small borders impacts governance - this could provide greater clarity regarding what consensus should look like among/between Fediverse instances.

… Finally, its worth asking:

How would our governance need to change in order to widen the diversity of SocialHub?

35

Perhaps given my feelings that the foundations of the open internet are starting to corrode and crumble that it would be adding a further category:

  1. Integrity
36

I would share the Integrity under Culture. Our hypercapitalist society gives unfair advantage to those wielding their vices. It is a distrust-first society. The task of fostering healthy social networking environments, in combined social and technological approaches, should be to forge and sustain safe online spaces where there are increased levels of trust between people, and there’s emphasis on people’s virtues, including the the trust in their integrity. SX for this purpose is based on intrinsic values of Humanity and Freedom for this purpose.

Regarding the corrosion and crumbling of the open internet, Social coding commons is based on the notion that if the technology base and ecosystem must be commons based to avoid that. The problem with “open internet”, same as with “open source”, is that it is also open to the bad actors.

Sideways related to “corrosion”, I do make a clear distinction between “social networking” and “social media”, where the latter is a subset of the first and refers to the typical broadcast media or mass social media we have today (also on the fediverse, first generation). If it is up to me we’ll enter a new generation of social networking soon, where there is a much more modest role for broadcast channels that fit more naturally to people’s everyday’s life. Today there was a nice article discussed on HN that aligns to my thoughts here..

Quoting from the article, which was written by James O’Sullivan..

Architectures Of Intention

The successor to mass social media is, as already noted, emerging not as a single platform, but as a scattering of alleyways, salons, encrypted lounges and federated town squares — those little gardens.

Maybe today’s major social media platforms will find new ways to hold the gaze of the masses, or maybe they will continue to decline in relevance, lingering like derelict shopping centers or a dying online game, haunted by bots and the echo of once‑human chatter. Occasionally we may wander back, out of habit or nostalgia, or to converse once more as a crowd, among the ruins. But as social media collapses on itself, the future points to a quieter, more fractured, more human web, something that no longer promises to be everything, everywhere, for everyone.

This is a good thing. Group chats and invite‑only circles are where context and connection survive. These are spaces defined less by scale than by shared understanding, where people no longer perform for an algorithmic audience but speak in the presence of chosen others. Messaging apps like Signal are quietly becoming dominant infrastructures for digital social life, not because they promise discovery, but because they don’t. In these spaces, a message often carries more meaning because it is usually directed, not broadcast.

The top comment on HN highlights a big opportunity and the weak spot (or Achilles Heel even?) of AI madness: Throwing yet more tech to try to bridge the huge gap that exists between tech and people + society. Humans are experts in this field, whereas AI is just cold hard machinery. Here is the comment..

When social media emerged, I remember how excited I was how it could connect like-minded people around the world. Now in 2025, the leader of the biggest platforms is talking about making people less lonely by connecting them to AI chatbots instead of making people find one another. That just feels like a huge lost potential.

1 Like
37

In the member-only Community > Well-Being area I posted about Fostering CALM culture as a mission for the rebooted SocialHub community. Related information are some notes I created this morning at Social coding commons:

38

Hey all, just want to note that I’m following this discussion with interest. Thanks everyone for their contributions!

I’ve been extremely busy this past week and weekend trying to put food on the table, and making sure my fellow members of Pavilion can do the same. Workers cooperatives do involve quite a bit of regular ole labor :sweat_smile: . But I promise I will try to get to some of the technical issues reported soon :folded_hands:

On the moderators front, one of the things that caught my eye was this

Perhaps it would be worth talking to IFTAS about helping to put a new wellbeing team together? This is their wheelhouse after all.

Just looking the IFTAS website that sounds like a good idea, e.g.

IFTAS is a non-profit organisation with a mission to support volunteer content moderators on federated networks. Learn more.

Does anyone know someone involved in IFTAS?

1 Like
39

Ping @jmking and in advisory board @thisismissem and @jdp23.

40

Conveniently enough, there’s at least one IFTAS advisor already on this thread – me!

IFTAS has been rescoping their work due to funding challenges, so won’t be able to be involved with helping to build a well-being team here – although there are a lot of resources available in their library. It’s frustrating because there’s general agreement about the importance of the people aspects of moderation and trust and safety, but alas the funding goes primarily to tools development (like ROOST, which has raised $27 million open-source safety tools … which can be very useful but are only part of the story).

1 Like