No, noāmoderators arenāt all-powerful. They do important work, but they also have very real limits.
Administrators, on the other hand, carry much greater authority.
And just because someone doesnāt get along with another person doesnāt mean theyāre automatically entitled to that personās spaces. What I find appealing about the Fediverse is precisely that ability to manage the whole stack myselfāwithout waiting on a distant company like Meta or X to make those decisions for me.
Of course, I could be banned for saying this. But since this thread is about me, and about my upcoming plans, I think itās only fair that I share them openly.
So, in absence of disagreements & conflicts (bcs insta ban/defederation), and building your own community, isnāt that a bit like that the lines of Trump (well, generally politicians to various degrees) or CEOs do?
Bcs with that (in those cases being surrounded by āyes-menā) reaching other specific goals is easier/faster.
I think Iām starting to understand where & how you are going with this, but perhaps not why. CEOs donāt have āa nice communityā as a goal, they have their agenda and timelines/mandates. Their ācommunitiesā are purpose-built (āmoderatedā).
What āuseā (~overall benefit?) is a highly selected federated community?
Itās a genuine question about endgame, how it would look like.
Trump runs a Mastodon forkāTruth Socialāthatās cut off from the broader Fediverse. Thatās the textbook example of building a walled garden surrounded by yes-men.
What Iām doing is the opposite. I will be federating. The difference is that Iāll only connect with servers that are well-maintained, responsibly moderated, and respectful in how they interact.
The key is, I donāt control those remote servers. I canāt dictate their policies, their culture, or their moderation. I only control mine. Thatās the entire point of federationāeach admin curates their own space, and people decide which servers they want to call home.
So users already have choice. Anyone who doesnāt like my standards can join another server with open registrations or spin up their own. Thatās not authoritarian. Thatās freedom of association.
A selective federated community matters because it resists the flattening effect of mass culture. Big, open servers always drift into lowest-common-denominator populismāoutrage cycles dominate, noise overwhelms signal, and actual discussion suffocates. Curation is not about surrounding myself with yes-men. Itās about creating an environment where real conversation can thrive without being hijacked by mob dynamics.
The irony is that pretending hierarchical software is flat and universalāthat it magically represents āthe peopleāāis closer to the politician/CEO move. Thatās the populist trick. At least Iām upfront about the structure and honest about what Iām doing with it.
The endgame isnāt control for its own sake. Itās sustainabilityāa space Iām willing to take responsibility for, that wonāt collapse under the weight of its own contradictions.
Itās not software that represents the people, itās the people using the software that represent the people.
If you handpick people vs if you run a defederated instance seems about the same approach, just at a different level.
If the granularity of like-mindedness standard gets too narrow you do just end up an increasingly homogenous group.
Thatās why I mentioned Trump & you provided the Truth Social mention (itās def not a personal level comparison) and how homogeneous it looks to the average outsider. But that does fit the description, only for such a community āone can take responsibilityā, bcs itās āhisā, not just the sever, but in a sense what the community is/the people are & what they do (same with CEOs in a company).
To very much exaggerate: like a cult agreeing on everything except the small things like what to have for dinner.
All the issues you repeated here seem like they are normal for a group of more than one person.
Itās just how humans are built. And how communities naturally evolve, live & change.
You mentioned the āfreedom of associationā - do you kinda equate that (association) with allegiance? Like a selected badge one wears?
The problem with your framing is that it treats software as neutral when it isnāt.
Social media software encodes structure into how communities are organized. If the software is hierarchical, the community will be hierarchical. Thereās no way around that unless everyone literally operates their own nodes.
And thatās where the real vulnerability lies. If you donāt run your own server, youāre not sovereign. Youāre donating your content to someone elseās machine and trusting that their standards, moderation, and moods wonāt turn against you. Ideals wonāt protect you if the design itself makes you dependent.
If you really care about a sense of ownership, then you should be running your own server. Thatās what freedom of association actually means. It isnāt allegiance. Allegiance locks you in. Association multiplies your choicesāpick a server that matches your values, or start your own. Thatās the entire point of federation.
So letās not pretend mass platforms or wide-open instances are some higher form of democracy. They arenāt. Theyāre just populism sitting on top of hierarchy. The lowest common denominator gets to shout āthis is the people,ā while the actual levers of control stay exactly where theyāve always beenāwith whoever holds the keys.
It seems like you want yo choose how you are seen and have a eorld that includes others but has no room for them to take any agency. Youāre big on concept that things are owned.
I believe my work should remain my own, and I should have the freedom to choose who I associate with. The only way to guarantee thatāboth practically and legallyāis by covering the cost of the server myself.
And you absolutely have your own agency as well. It just means you may need to exercise it in a space thatās a better fit for you.
Im not saying you need to associate with anyone in particular, im saying you might be saying that to paper over some seriously fucked/unhealthy attitudes towards what people are amd what you want from them. Theyāre not toys. You can curate, but even the closest collaborators will have differences that need resolving. Saying that rwsolution must always fit uour exact vision if even a small part of the world is pretty fuvked up.
![[Update] AtomicPoet has deleted the piefed.social communities where he was the sole moderator ([email protected] being the exception). Content is still available, details in the linked post](https://lazysoci.al/pictrs/image/cb7c5a29-e297-41a8-bde5-698ba205c3fd.png){kind=link}
No, noāmoderators arenāt all-powerful. They do important work, but they also have very real limits.
Administrators, on the other hand, carry much greater authority.
And just because someone doesnāt get along with another person doesnāt mean theyāre automatically entitled to that personās spaces. What I find appealing about the Fediverse is precisely that ability to manage the whole stack myselfāwithout waiting on a distant company like Meta or X to make those decisions for me.
Of course, I could be banned for saying this. But since this thread is about me, and about my upcoming plans, I think itās only fair that I share them openly.
TIL using a colloquialism is the same thing as not getting along.
You and I disagree on whether itās just a harmless colloquialism.
I donāt like bro-talk. Because bro-talk feeds bro cultureāand bro culture is something I want no part of.
And according to you that disagreement also means we donāt get along. Because otherwise you wouldnāt be banning people for saying bro, bro.
You would be correct.
So, in absence of disagreements & conflicts (bcs insta ban/defederation), and building your own community, isnāt that a bit like that the lines of Trump (well, generally politicians to various degrees) or CEOs do?
Bcs with that (in those cases being surrounded by āyes-menā) reaching other specific goals is easier/faster.
I think Iām starting to understand where & how you are going with this, but perhaps not why. CEOs donāt have āa nice communityā as a goal, they have their agenda and timelines/mandates. Their ācommunitiesā are purpose-built (āmoderatedā).
What āuseā (~overall benefit?) is a highly selected federated community?
Itās a genuine question about endgame, how it would look like.
The Trump comparison actually cuts the other way.
Trump runs a Mastodon forkāTruth Socialāthatās cut off from the broader Fediverse. Thatās the textbook example of building a walled garden surrounded by yes-men.
What Iām doing is the opposite. I will be federating. The difference is that Iāll only connect with servers that are well-maintained, responsibly moderated, and respectful in how they interact.
The key is, I donāt control those remote servers. I canāt dictate their policies, their culture, or their moderation. I only control mine. Thatās the entire point of federationāeach admin curates their own space, and people decide which servers they want to call home.
So users already have choice. Anyone who doesnāt like my standards can join another server with open registrations or spin up their own. Thatās not authoritarian. Thatās freedom of association.
A selective federated community matters because it resists the flattening effect of mass culture. Big, open servers always drift into lowest-common-denominator populismāoutrage cycles dominate, noise overwhelms signal, and actual discussion suffocates. Curation is not about surrounding myself with yes-men. Itās about creating an environment where real conversation can thrive without being hijacked by mob dynamics.
The irony is that pretending hierarchical software is flat and universalāthat it magically represents āthe peopleāāis closer to the politician/CEO move. Thatās the populist trick. At least Iām upfront about the structure and honest about what Iām doing with it.
The endgame isnāt control for its own sake. Itās sustainabilityāa space Iām willing to take responsibility for, that wonāt collapse under the weight of its own contradictions.
Itās not software that represents the people, itās the people using the software that represent the people.
If you handpick people vs if you run a defederated instance seems about the same approach, just at a different level.
If the granularity of like-mindedness standard gets too narrow you do just end up an increasingly homogenous group.
Thatās why I mentioned Trump & you provided the Truth Social mention (itās def not a personal level comparison) and how homogeneous it looks to the average outsider. But that does fit the description, only for such a community āone can take responsibilityā, bcs itās āhisā, not just the sever, but in a sense what the community is/the people are & what they do (same with CEOs in a company).
To very much exaggerate: like a cult agreeing on everything except the small things like what to have for dinner.
All the issues you repeated here seem like they are normal for a group of more than one person.
Itās just how humans are built. And how communities naturally evolve, live & change.
You mentioned the āfreedom of associationā - do you kinda equate that (association) with allegiance? Like a selected badge one wears?
The problem with your framing is that it treats software as neutral when it isnāt.
Social media software encodes structure into how communities are organized. If the software is hierarchical, the community will be hierarchical. Thereās no way around that unless everyone literally operates their own nodes.
And thatās where the real vulnerability lies. If you donāt run your own server, youāre not sovereign. Youāre donating your content to someone elseās machine and trusting that their standards, moderation, and moods wonāt turn against you. Ideals wonāt protect you if the design itself makes you dependent.
If you really care about a sense of ownership, then you should be running your own server. Thatās what freedom of association actually means. It isnāt allegiance. Allegiance locks you in. Association multiplies your choicesāpick a server that matches your values, or start your own. Thatās the entire point of federation.
So letās not pretend mass platforms or wide-open instances are some higher form of democracy. They arenāt. Theyāre just populism sitting on top of hierarchy. The lowest common denominator gets to shout āthis is the people,ā while the actual levers of control stay exactly where theyāve always beenāwith whoever holds the keys.
Ah, soā¦
It seems like you want yo choose how you are seen and have a eorld that includes others but has no room for them to take any agency. Youāre big on concept that things are owned.
I believe my work should remain my own, and I should have the freedom to choose who I associate with. The only way to guarantee thatāboth practically and legallyāis by covering the cost of the server myself.
And you absolutely have your own agency as well. It just means you may need to exercise it in a space thatās a better fit for you.
Im not saying you need to associate with anyone in particular, im saying you might be saying that to paper over some seriously fucked/unhealthy attitudes towards what people are amd what you want from them. Theyāre not toys. You can curate, but even the closest collaborators will have differences that need resolving. Saying that rwsolution must always fit uour exact vision if even a small part of the world is pretty fuvked up.
Generally speaking, I get along with people just fine. But I also believe you need to have principles. Without them, what do you really stand for?
What does standing for anything have to do with this?