Some of you (especially in the UK) might have read a piece in Freedom News about using the French Reseau Mutu (Mutu Network) as a model for the possibility of a connected series of sites for radical information and mutual aid in different areas. Imagine it: instead of Facebook groups or Twitter profiles (eurgh) or disparate, disconnected “silos” of info or walled gardens, a one-stop space for anti-capitalist, anti-fascist news and shared updates about local actions, events, protests, meetings, campaigns, resources, and more. Each region having its own online “community.”
I’ve arrived at the conclusion that the Fediverse, even specifically Lemmy and especially Beehaw, offer an example of the template that this could be built on. If anyone’s interested in the idea, let me know.
Apologies for that “media activist manifesto” being so very long, but it took a lot of research to argue that this is a good opportunity for anarchist media/info!
What do you think about kolektiva.social for example?
I was on kolektiva.social for a while (and still use their sibling instance on PeerTube, kolektiva.media), but found they became too unwieldy to effectively moderate, and unfortunately hit headlines with their compromised server data. I’m now on todon.eu.
I think Mastodon is a fantastic and important system of communication. However, I think a Mutu-style network would rely on something similar to Lemmy/Beehaw.
I don’t think disabling the down-vote feature makes that much of a difference as the author makes it sound like for Beehaw. On slrpnk.net (which is arguable more of an activist instance than Beehaw) we also had it disabled for the first year of operation (to fend off vote brigarding from lemmy.ml etc.), but after a member vote we re-enabled it, and it didn’t really make much of a difference IMHO.
That’s an interesting point. If it doesn’t make much of a difference, then why even ever enable it?
I find it best to really only embrace what contributes to a positive, productive experience rather than just replicating the Reddit culture through copycat features. But that’s just a small detail. The main challenge ahead is to utilise these templates to create a radical info space similar to the Mutu Network. Hopefully we can do it!
That’s an interesting point. If it doesn’t make much of a difference, then why even ever enable it?
The prevailing argument in favour as I understood it was that it was a way to “flag” comments that are factually wrong, misleading or mean-spirited.
Those against mostly argued that it would be used as a popularity meter, that people would use it as a “I don’t like this” button and that it would enable mass downvoting. Instead of implementing downvotes, we could more upvote more often and make flag better comments that way.
Some proposed enabling downvotes, but having a guideline on when and how to use them so that votes have a specific meaning, but they would never be followed by the fediverse as most users from outside wouldn’t even see the guidelines.
In the end they were enabled, and as mentioned nothing noteworthy happened. We didn’t encounter any problems after they were enabled (that I know of) and I guess they do mark “bad” comments, though sometimes alright comments do enter the negative votes zone.
Personally, I think that if votes are attached and visible to everyone, we should have a clear definition of what they mean. An ecosystem-wide guideline on what does an ‘upvote’ say and what does a ‘downvote’ say. Otherwise everyone is using votes witg their own mindset and the meaning of the total number is vague. But this would of course require mass cooperation.
That’s really insightful and interesting, thanks! I do like the idea of simple reporting of posts rather than downvoting.
Hopefully as a Fediverse instance of radical info hubs forms, these discussions can be the topics to tackle. That’d be a wonderful “problem” to have! I’m hoping more people step forward expressing interest in the concept and willing to help make it happen.
