|
|
Log in / Subscribe / Register

Federation in social networks, why it's inevitable

Federation in social networks, why it's inevitable

Posted Dec 21, 2017 3:55 UTC (Thu) by Garak (guest, #99377)
In reply to: Federation in social networks, why it's never going to work. by NAR
Parent article: Federation in social networks

"don't these microblogs get comments or answers? In that case the spammers can send their spam in comments and answers"

At the end of the day it's web-of-trust moderation. White/pass-lists and Black/block-lists and experiments with various graylisting techniques in between. Sources of spam get moderated/untrusted, perhaps fractionally and incrementally. Spam was never a problem for people who used whitelists of contacts that go to their main inbox with everything else going to a check-once-in-a-blue-moon folder if not /dev/null.

Also, 'microblogging' is stupid. Add a feature to make a default display have a message size limit, with a one-click away from 'more' and you can support both users with not much to say, and lots to say.

Finally, I consider the widespread prohibition of home/mobile servers by ISPs to be the real impediment. If that barrier were removed, development would happen exponentially faster. As in 5 years ago we'd have had stuff way better than we will in reality 5 years from now. The development that goes on with the w3c's blessing is political distraction from the field of opportunities to experiment everyone should have with their ordinary home/mobile internet service. The internet is and should be more than just http/s. It should be a place where people are free to develop and experiment with new protocols without having to negotiate permission from their ISP/gatekeeper.


to post comments


Copyright © 2026, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds