I see a future where mastodon's instances work very much like communities in the radical scene -- with runaway unaccountable scene patriarchs who maneuver into controlling the core infrastructure.
It's a mistake to think of "social capitalists" as accumulating only one universally fungible sort of social capital. Social capitalism can function in harsher ways in smaller communities.
I'm super skeptical about "crypto" solutionism in a lot of contexts. But the current inability to port one's followers between instances on mastodon(ie gnusocial) is a deep failing because it incentivizes the creation of groups (instances) with strong pressures to continue existing, and as a consequence immense power in the hands of a few (those able to seize control the instance itself).
@rechelon i have seen people changing instances and it worked pretty smooth. the active followers will move with you. so for all practical purpose i see not a big problem here.
@benni Well the "active" followers switch if they notice your posts about changing. But there's a lot of space between "active" and "sees every post" in a healthy network.
@rechelon I guess the advantage of mastodon in this case is at least you can start up a new instance/move to a different one while remaining in contact with (most of?) the other people in the federation if you want which gives individual users that bit more power to move around.
@captainbland That "remaining contact" goes only one way tho, because people don't auto follow or auto discover your new profile.
@rechelon yeah that's true. That'd be a tricky problem to solve. It could possibly be done with cryptographic identities (maybe you rsa sign your account or something, not sure on the specifics of the scheme) which could exist as multiple accounts on separate nodes while still representing the same identity and people would follow that global identity rather than an instance account. No idea if that's even vaguely close to being on a roadmap.
> runaway unaccountable scene patriarchs who maneuver into controlling the core infrastructure.
- which is the reason why, at social.coop, we're trying our best to run the instance as a cooperative: each member has equal rights and duties
@Antanicus This can be better, but my critiques and concerns extend to the coop model (having been a member of many).
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!