I was asked if and how Mastodon can avoid the alt-right sealion/barraging horrors of Twitter *and* the tankie horrors of Facebook.

This is, I think, an illuminating question/framing that gets at a lot of what I've been talking about in terms of anarchistic network structures.


Greater agency on the part of individual association (increased understanding of and find-grained control over who you're collectively chatting with) tends to reduce the impact that alt-right fake account armies can have as well as tribal incivility.

Yet when greater agency over who you're engaging with isn't managed at the individual level, but is outsourced to federative structures or discrete "groups", that tend towards tankie style failure modes -- not least because control can be seized.

The deeper problem is that most people are cognitively lazy -- they don't want to do the work of managing associations with a vast panopoly of different people, per context, they'd rather inherit some defaults, like a managed group.

But this is a well known barrier to the much harder path of anarchism. People like statism and power relations more generally because they involve cognitive simplifications. People have a pull within them *away* from agency. They don't like real choice or freedom.

This is part of what I've long been emphasizing about the negative defaults of humans. Our shitty monkey brains are more natural fascists than they are anarchists -- there's a reason reactionaries are called reactionaries -- fighting, provoking, growing beyond that is hard.

@rechelon I both agree and disagree. To me anarchism, rather than a state of mind, is at first the most efficient and non-oppressive mean of resolution for human conflicts (which come naturally, and it's a good thing actually)

Sign in to participate in the conversation

Server run by the main developers of the project 🐘 It is not focused on any particular niche interest - everyone is welcome as long as you follow our code of conduct!