Some of you have probably already read my rant about the Fosstodon drama. Here I’ll reprise the basic concepts of my toot on fedi.
What happened to Fosstodon proves, for me, that when a digital group of people grows beyond a certain number - that I 'd count in the hundreds, not in the thousands - more often jerks prevail. Hidden behind their keyboards, many (most?) people are jerks when they have the chance. So every bar, getting bigger, is on the verge to become a jerks bar.
That’s why those still wondering “how can fedi win? we need bigger instances!” make no sense, for me. If winning is copying techbro socials, we have ample proof that bigger instances gradually become a mess of spam, jerks, bots, misinfo and drama. And then collapse, if they’re below a critical self-sustaining mass. Thinking “oh but this time it’s different, we’re different” is naive.
Bigger is not better, smaller has much more appeal. That’s also why I think spaces like this will survive and can be a safe haven.
I’d wonder if Dunbar’s Number plays a role here, with particular mind to your sizing of ‘hundreds, not thousands’. Eg, that once interactions move from personal to transactional/impersonal/audience-minded/whatever, that certain social attitudes make more sense for whatever motivates the actor.
In the old times - I mean, huh, the 10s IIRC - there has even been a (short-lived) mobile social network based on Dunbar’s number: you were able to have just 150 connections max.
I tested it, but it went nowhere and collapsed quickly. Because people still thought that the more “friends” you had, the cooler you were.
from a social science perspective, there are DEFINTELY numbers for group formation that are ideal for group cohesiveness and happiness. Affinity groups (3-15 people ish?) networked with other affinity groups (up to 10ish?) networked with other collectives of networked affinity groups (like 7? 10 tops) networked with OTHER collectives (like 3 or 5?) is the way to go B)
(don’t ask for my source; I’m making these numbers up based on vibes, man)
This is why I love the concept of webrings and digital gardening sooooo much. Just still internalizing the structural integrity models before I start really going off about it.
This exact thing is why I am one of those folks that has the “archipelago” view of Fedi - a bunch of interconnected islands or, as I see them, neighborhoods. In my view, there is no such thing as a “global town square”, nor should there be.
To me the way that “fedi wins” (if we’re going to couch things in those terms for the purposes of discussion) is more the idea that everyone can potentially talk to everyone else via the technology of connection, but there is more work on their part required to do so and they don’t have to if they don’t want to. They’re not forced to become part of a gigantic community because they’re pushed everyone’s posts all the time that they then have to whittle down.
Interlinked small communities with voluntary connections is where it’s at, in my mind.
… Just got me thinking about how I have more followers on Fedi than I’ve had anywhere else combined. That said, who I follow is far smaller. Even considering all my accounts. ~~The lack of artists, models, and “models” on Fedi helps with that, but still.
I remember on Tumblr I purged like, 600 follows at one point, and that was less than half.
Tech.LGBT went though drama a while back. While I feel it was resolved well enough, (though I can understand how it could be seen as insufficient by the other parties directlyinvolved,) there are still scars. Like .art blocking the instance.
One of the things I really like about Fedi is that while there are social problems, they are human-level problems. You’re dealing with a jerk in power, not The Jerk in power.