- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
His grand vision remains to leave Mastodon users in control of the social network, making their own decisions about what content is allowed or what appears in their timelines.
I don’t use Mastadon cause I don’t care for micro-blogging, but nevertheless, I like this.
Wasn’t this same ceo criticizing Zuckerberg last week for shutting down fact checking?
Getting really mixed signals here. What’s with the back and forth on this guy’s approach to centralized authority?
Isn’t it decentralized authority since every instance controls what they allow, not the CEO of mastodon?
As I understand it. It’s just weird that this same guy was praising centralized authority at Facebook last week. Something seems off.
I would think there is a priority order in his mind. Decentralized fact checking, centralized fact checking, no fact checking. His actions fit well with that. Also, I believe zuck wasn’t using only one asset to do the checking. He was using multiple fact checking sources. So it was kinda decentralized. I would expect this guy would rather see the user choose the fact checking source for content they see.
Surph_ninja is definitely right with one thing though: previously Meta used a pre-selected group of organizers who were able to fact check. Meta are now switching to a model where everyone can “fact check” (the former Twitter “community notes” system).
Using multiple sources that support the same pro-western narratives means little. It doesn’t make a lie peddled by the IDF any better by delivering it through multiple outlets.
Meta has replaced third places, public square and community directories and then sells that access to other media.
It is a conflict of interest for the community directors themselves to profiting off things which harm the community.
To the best of my knowledge, Mastodon does not have that conflict of interest.