#onlinecommunities — Public Fediverse posts
Live and recent posts from across the Fediverse tagged #onlinecommunities, aggregated by home.social.
-
Show Me Where It Hurts
I have been building and moderating conversation on the internet since the internet had conversation worth moderating, and one quarrel from those years has never let me put it down. It happened on Reddit, in one of the medical-advice communities, the ask-a-doctor kind, and the room's name has dissolved from memory while its images have refused to leave. People arrived with photographs of their own fresh cuts and posted them for assessment, and the moderators split over what they were looking at. One camp called the pictures fine in a medical setting: a patient presenting an injury to doctors, the oldest transaction in medicine arriving through a new door. The other camp read performance, attention pursued through injury, and wanted every image gone. I stood with the second camp's verdict while distrusting its reasoning, because the deletion seemed right to me for a reason neither camp was saying: whatever any single poster intended, the gallery was awe-inspiring to the wrong eyes. I could not have defended that instinct with numbers then, and now I can, so here is the argument laid out in full, the folk theory measured, the audience counted, the room itself put on the scale. […] -
Big Tech thrives on division and on treating us as isolated individuals—so why do we still trust its platforms to hold our communities together?
Join the next #RABT online workshop, “Strengthening Online Communities,” on July 29th at 3pm UTC to brainstorm ways to build digital spaces that truly serve our movements rather than Big Tech’s business model.
Details and registration: https://howto.riseagainstbig.tech/pub/online-workshop-strengthening-onlline-communities #RiseAgainstBigTech #OnlineCommunities #OpenSource .
-
Big Tech thrives on division and on treating us as isolated individuals—so why do we still trust its platforms to hold our communities together?
Join the next #RABT online workshop, “Strengthening Online Communities,” on July 29th at 3pm UTC to brainstorm ways to build digital spaces that truly serve our movements rather than Big Tech’s business model.
Details and registration: https://howto.riseagainstbig.tech/pub/online-workshop-strengthening-onlline-communities #RiseAgainstBigTech #OnlineCommunities #OpenSource .
-
Big Tech thrives on division and on treating us as isolated individuals—so why do we still trust its platforms to hold our communities together?
Join the next #RABT online workshop, “Strengthening Online Communities,” on July 29th at 3pm UTC to brainstorm ways to build digital spaces that truly serve our movements rather than Big Tech’s business model.
Details and registration: https://howto.riseagainstbig.tech/pub/online-workshop-strengthening-onlline-communities #RiseAgainstBigTech #OnlineCommunities #OpenSource .
-
Big Tech thrives on division and on treating us as isolated individuals—so why do we still trust its platforms to hold our communities together?
Join the next #RABT online workshop, “Strengthening Online Communities,” on July 29th at 3pm UTC to brainstorm ways to build digital spaces that truly serve our movements rather than Big Tech’s business model.
Details and registration: https://howto.riseagainstbig.tech/pub/online-workshop-strengthening-onlline-communities #RiseAgainstBigTech #OnlineCommunities #OpenSource .
-
Big Tech thrives on division and on treating us as isolated individuals—so why do we still trust its platforms to hold our communities together?
Join the next #RABT online workshop, “Strengthening Online Communities,” on July 29th at 3pm UTC to brainstorm ways to build digital spaces that truly serve our movements rather than Big Tech’s business model.
Details and registration: https://howto.riseagainstbig.tech/pub/online-workshop-strengthening-onlline-communities #RiseAgainstBigTech #OnlineCommunities #OpenSource .
-
May 21 will mark 25 consecutive years that I've managed the same online community. Can I make it to 50?
We're working on some plans to celebrate the occasion. It's interesting to get into generational online community. Not just because your community attracts people of different ages but because different people were born after it launched, and they are now participating in the community.
-
Users Are Too Dependent on Centralized Techno-Fascist Corporate Structure to Ever Leave Discord
I’m watching people scatter into countless real-time chat alternatives to Discord after Discord started pulling the age-verification and age-gating card.
It’s very frustrating because people are entirely missing the point of a community and how social networks work. Real-time platforms and social media networks only work well when a large number of people share the same space at the same time. If everyone creates separate servers or competing apps, the result is fragmentation that makes it unviable.
One reason why Bluesky became so successful is the invitation and starter-pack move. It essentially allowed people to move collectively as cliques. Bluesky used invitations and starter packs to move groups of friends together. This kept communities intact. Moving as cliques preserves network structure, whereas random scattering does not. People aren’t do not seem to intend to move as cliques or subgraphs of networks off of Discord. And the whole reason people were on Discord was to host their communities, so an alternative becomes pointless if your community doesn’t remain intact.
Instead of an active, strongly connected, possibly distributed network, you get dozens of small pockets. I am referring to a potential distributed network rather than a single centralized platform, because Matrix is an example of a decentralized chat protocol. Not all alternatives have to be centralized like Discord. Technically, many older chat protocols, such as XMPP and IRC, are examples of federated real-time synchronous messaging. They allowed communication between users on different, independently operated servers. Federation means that multiple servers can interconnect so that users from separate networks can exchange messages with one another seamlessly.
Decentralized alternatives would not be a problem if people moved to the same distributed network as cohesive groups. However, what I am seeing is that people move in disconnected and stochastic ways to entirely separate distributed networks, so communities are not kept intact. For example, when people move to XMPP servers or Matrix servers, it bifurcates and disconnects social networks. Notice I said XMPP or Matrix, which logically means people are on Matrix but not XMPP, or they are on XMPP but not Matrix. That implies a person would need to be on both Matrix and XMPP to speak to their original community from Discord if it split down the middle. To synchronize conversations in chats, there would need to be a bridge. It’s a pretty complicated solution.
The likely outcome is that people will remain on the dominant platform because of its scale and structure. The deeper irony is that while people may want independence from corporate platforms, they often struggle to organize effectively without the centralized structure those platforms provide. They’ve become so dependent on corporate structures to support their communities that they have no clue how to organize their own social networks in a sustainable way.
I’ve always been an internet nerd, but most of my social life has been offline. I view my interactions with the social app layer of the internet as a game, so losing that domain of the Internet is not devastating to me.
I’ll give you an example. This is a WordPress site. You hear this insincere nostalgia from Millennials and Gen X for a simulacrum that never was, especially concerning forums. Check this out: when you go into the plugin installation section of WordPress, this is on the second row you see:
That means any WordPress site has the capability to host a forum. They’re nostalgic for a setup where you can use a simple install script on any hosting service to install WordPress. After that, you can then just add a plugin to turn it into a forum. Hell, they can do this on WordPress.com if they don’t want to self-host.
You can make a forum, but no one will use it because they’d rather use a centralized platform like Reddit. Users have become so dependent on corporations to structure and organize communities that they can’t do it themselves. It’s sort of like the cognitive debt that accrues when people outsource their thinking to AI.
The issue is not that forums are hard to host or create; rather, the issue is that people have become so dependent on centralized corporate structures that they can’t maintain or organize their own communities, which is why everyone ends up on Reddit or Discord. A reason I keep hearing for why people don’t want to leave Discord is that it’s hard to recreate the community structure that Discord’s features provide. They claim that they want independence from corporate platforms, but rely on the centralized structure those platforms provide to function socially.
People say they want decentralized freedom, but in practice they depend on centralized platforms to maintain social cohesion. Stochastically scattering to the digital winds of the noosphere destroys the very communities they’re trying to preserve.
-
@cloudskater wrote:
Some instances are run by bad people. Hell, a few projects like Lemmy and Matrix are DEVELOPED by assholes, but the FLOSS and federated nature of these platforms allows us to bypass/fork them and create healthy spaces outside their reach.
Nope, that is actually what is killing the fediverse. I just explained here:
The issue is the divergence in semantic interpretation that emerges at the interpretation layer. ActivityPub standardizes message delivery and defines common activity types. However, it leaves extension semantics and application-layer policy decisions to individual implementations. Servers may introduce custom JSON-LD namespaces and enforce local behaviors, such as reply restrictions, while remaining protocol-compliant. But, the noise created by divergences are problematic, because it creates unexpected, unintended, and unpredictable behavior.
Divergence appears when implementations rely on non-normative metadata and assume reciprocal handling to preserve a consistent user experience. Behavioral alignment then varies. Syntactic exchange succeeds, but behavioral consistency is not guaranteed. Though instances continue to federate at the transport level, policy semantics and processing logic differ across deployments. Those differences produce inconsistent experiences and results between implementations.
That leads to fragmentation, specifically semantic or behavioral fragmentation and an inconsistent user experiences. ActivityPub ensures syntactic interoperability, but semantic interoperability (everyone interprets and enforces rules the same way) varies. This creates a system that is federated at the transport level yet fragmented in behavior and expectations across implementations. It is funny how the thing that the fediverse touted has made the entire thing very brittle. ActivityPub technically federates correctly, but semantically falls apart once servers start adding their own behavioral rules.
https://neon-blue-demon-wyrm.x10.network/archives/16932
FYI, I’m not doing culture wars or political debates. I’m just saying this idea of “forking away” from them is literally breaking the fediverse’s distributed network and creating all kinds of issues with semantic interoperability. Yes, federation is still happening at the delivery level, but the semantic issues are out of fucking control. You are a federation by the very sheer skin of your teeth.
The reason why developers are leaving the fediverse is because you folks don’t take criticism. You respond to criticism with — I’m being so serious right now — political manifestos and harassing developers. ActivityPub developers and authors oversold you folks on the capabilities of ActivityStreams. They flat-out lied to y’all.
-
ActivityPub Server’s Custom Reply‑Control Extensions Undermine Federation
It seems like Activitbypub developers are extending ActivityPub with optional metadata to fix a lot of its issues, but that is still problematic. Trying to add moderation tools and user control to threads seems to be the ongoing battle. I am fascinated by dumpster fires, so I’ve started looking at the ActivityPub protocol in detail. I tend to become fascinated with things that are going down in flames.
As a brief recap of the problem:
So, one of the very popular features on Bluesky—also popular on Twitter—is the ability to select who can reply to a post. A major issue in the Fediverse is the inability to decide who can reply, and once you block someone, their harassing reply is still there. I honestly thought it was simply a case of them choosing not to add or address it for cultural reasons. What is clear from that thread is that they were always aware that the ActivityPub protocol and most Fediverse implementations don’t provide a universal way to control reply visibility or enforce blocks across instances.
An ActivityPub server that has reply control is GoToSocial. ActivityPub, as defined by the W3C specification, standardizes how servers federate activities. It defines actors, inboxes, outboxes, and activity types (Create, Follow, Like, Announce, etc.) expressed using ActivityStreams 2.0. It also specifies delivery mechanics (including how a Create activity reaches another server’s inbox) and how collections behave.
The specification does not include interaction policy semantics such as “only followers may reply” or “replies require manual approval.” There is no field in the normative vocabulary requiring conforming servers to enforce reply permissions. That category of rule is outside the protocol’s defined contract.
GoToSocial implements reply controls through what it calls interaction policies. These appear as additional properties on ActivityStreams objects using a custom JSON-LD namespace controlled by the GoToSocial project.
JSON-LD permits additional namespaced terms. This means the document remains structurally valid ActivityStreams and federates normally. The meaning of those custom fields, however, comes from GoToSocial’s own documentation and implementation. Other servers can ignore them without violating ActivityPub because they are not part of the interoperable core vocabulary.
Enforcement occurs locally. When a remote server sends a reply—a Create activity whose object references another via inReplyTo—ActivityPub governs delivery, not acceptance criteria. Whether the receiving server checks a reply policy, rejects the activity, queues it, or displays it is determined in the server’s inbox-processing code. The decision to accept, display, or require approval happens after successful protocol-level delivery. This behavior belongs to the application layer.
These are server-side features layered on top of ActivityPub’s transport and data model that are not actually part of ActivityPub. The protocol ensures standardized delivery of activities; however, the server implementation defines additional constraints and user-facing behavior. Two GoToSocial instances may both recognize and act on the same extension fields. However, a different implementation, such as Mastodon, has no obligation under the specification to interpret or enforce GoToSocial’s interactionPolicy properties. These fields function as extension metadata rather than protocol requirements.
The semantics of GoToSocial are not part of the specification’s defined vocabulary and processing rules for ActivityPub. They no longer operate purely at the protocol layer; it has become an application-layer contract implemented by specific servers.
Let’s use the AT Protocol as an example. Bluesky’s direct messages (DMs) are not currently part of the AT Protocol (ATProto). The AT Protocol has nothing that specifies anything for DMs, so DMs are not part of the AT Protocol. The AT Protocol was designed to handle public social interactions, but it does not define private or encrypted messaging. Bluesky implemented DMs at the application level, outside of the core protocol. DMs are centralized and stored on Bluesky’s servers. What is happening with servers like GoToSocial is sort of like that. The difference is that the AT Protocol was designed for different app views; ActivityPub was not.
The issue is the divergence in semantic interpretation that emerges at the interpretation layer. ActivityPub standardizes message delivery and defines common activity types. However, it leaves extension semantics and application-layer policy decisions to individual implementations. Servers may introduce custom JSON-LD namespaces and enforce local behaviors, such as reply restrictions, while remaining protocol-compliant. But, the noise created by divergences are problematic, because it creates unexpected, unintended, and unpredictable behavior.
Divergence appears when implementations rely on non-normative metadata and assume reciprocal handling to preserve a consistent user experience. Behavioral alignment then varies. Syntactic exchange succeeds, but behavioral consistency is not guaranteed. Though instances continue to federate at the transport level, policy semantics and processing logic differ across deployments. Those differences produce inconsistent experiences and results between implementations.
That leads to fragmentation, specifically semantic or behavioral fragmentation and an inconsistent user experiences. ActivityPub ensures syntactic interoperability, but semantic interoperability (everyone interprets and enforces rules the same way) varies. This creates a system that is federated at the transport level yet fragmented in behavior and expectations across implementations. It is funny how the thing that the fediverse touted has made the entire thing very brittle. ActivityPub technically federates correctly, but semantically falls apart once servers start adding their own behavioral rules.
-
January 6 is a reminder of the consequences of weak leadership in those making community, moderation, trust, safety, and policy decisions. Sometimes from people in those roles - and sometimes from the bosses they report to.
Public interest exemptions - and the bending of policy for users with big followings, for fear of losing them - helped set the stage for Donald Trump to ascend to the presidency.
#OnlineCommunities #CommunityManagement #CMGR #TrustAndSafety #January6 #J6
-
I was watching a series of TikTok videos where a woman discussed her efforts to track down and hold accountable a man who left a horrendous, highly offensive comment on one of her videos, from his business account.
She has reported the man's behavior to groups that he is a member of, licensing agencies for his business, and other relevant professional parties.
https://www.tiktok.com/@alexfullofgrace/video/7582368064214273311
#TrustAndSafety #ContentModeration #OnlineCommunities #Communitymanagement #CMGR
-
Internet fandoms are great communities for sharing and having fun. But when do they stop being a hobby and start becoming an obsession? From Star Trek cons to the Swifties, places of creativity and cultural innovation can evolve into unhealthy parasocial relationships with mob-like behaviours and radicalization.
https://negativepid.blog/internet-fandoms-from-fun-to-radicalization/
#fandoms #stanCulture #radicalization #onlineBehaviour #onlineCommunities #psychology #cyberPsychology #toxic
