I'm already seeing people complaining about the *presence* of a code of conduct on this site. Say they might leave, etc. Code of conduct doing its job, I'd say! That's the power of social federation: to create manageable moderated social spaces for everybody without disconnecting a part from the whole. Just go somewhere else.
@puellavulnerata that's the design challenge of federation anyway. UX and network challenges. the main goal: when people want a close network, it should feel close. federation ends up working ok in practice and generally really well for those with poor-network communities because they operate locally first and federated there-after.
@wilkie ah, okay - we speak orthogonally at each other perhaps, then.
My concern had been that both the norms of communities can drift quite a bjt while remaining nominally under the same labels, and by the same token individual preferences about norms can also drift.
E.g. 'please don't be sexist' can mean 'no Roissy-style posturing and strutting about alphas and cucks' at one point, and 'consent is not enough' (https://twitter.com/puellavulnerata/status/527417882620465152) ...
...and #shirtstorm at another point. I'd rather not have the dudely nonsense in the first case, and I'd rather not have the angry mob in the second.
If I am embedded in a social network, and norms drift in such fashion, am I then trapped by network effects? This is the thing I would want to be able to avoid in a federated system, hence concern for switching costs.
@puellavulnerata I think different sites with "site timelines" for discovery, their own concepts of moderation, and good filtering can make people happy. at least so they aren't arguing all the time about what is/isn't acceptable and what is/isn't infringing boundaries. probably why I like the idea of codes of conduct is that we can now assume the boundary exists and we deal with that assumption. the federation should help (not hinder) this by allowing alternative spaces.
@wilkie oh, agreed - allowing for fragmentation can help resolve a lot of conflicts. One simply must be aware of how powerful the network effects trap can be in social networks, and make sure the incentives point toward fragmentation to resolve such things rather than attempts to capture a space.
@wilkie I liked how Imzy handled the issue: the site TOS was sort of the federal Constitution (no hate speech, harassment, trolling), but users could set up sub-communities with more/less restrictive codes of behavior.
Honestly, though, whenever I hear someone huffing about repressive TOSs, my first assumption is "anarchist troll". I've had lengthy, in-depth conversations with people about sensitive topics, and I've never had to resort to savagery to make a point.