I agree wholeheartedly with the message in the blog, but I found the tone a bit cringy and it seems to me to be preaching to the converted. IMO this is one of the things that the FSF/GNU have gotten wrong over the years -- using messaging that gets applause from the people who are already true believers and provokes skepticism or annoyance in people outside their bubble.
An example: "They let their message be governed by the whims of out-of-touch and overpaid people who believe they should have unchecked power. We cannot let this stand."
The "overpaid" thing is just a lazy jab that doesn't really land. "out-of-touch... people who believe they should have unchecked power". So, it'd be OK if they were in touch people? Isn't it bad enough they want unchecked power?
I hope the new leadership at Mastodon can find ways to appeal to people who are outside the current audience. I could be wrong, but I don't think this is quite the right approach.
One of the tools these corporate social media platforms use to control an institution’s communications is the algorithm.
Ugh, can we please stop conflating recommendation algorithms with "the algorithm"? I've come to expect this from clueless news outlets, but the official Mastodon blog can surely do better?
Sorting your timeline chronologically is an algorithm.
How else would you explain the situation to nontechnical people?
„The Algorithm“ has become a common expression and that sucks, but I have failed to find a better way to make my point succinctly to people who don’t know (and would rather not care) what an actual algorithm is.
One of the tools these corporate social media platforms use to control an institution’s communications is the algorithm.
"Corporate social media platforms employ algorithms that decide if an institution's communication like their posts are shown to any other user, and the context in which they are shown."
It's clearer about the impact, namely "you, the citizen, might not even see what the institution publishes because something at the corporation decides against it" and it links the term "algorithm" in its vernacular meaning with the situation without being imprecise.
I am not enthusiastic about the framework of "digital sovereignty" in which rights belong (as is repeated here) to "institutions," rather than people. It is the same EU which is so concerned about its own digital sovereignty which has repeatedly considered making illegal end to end encrypted communication. Obviously the EU should not be using platforms like Twitter that are owned and operated by capricious fascists, but neither should a justice framework centering the rights of state institutions become the basis for our conversation.
The blog post is about institutions' digital sovereignty, and the rights they themselves have if they run their own infra ("The term digital sovereignty means that an institution has autonomy and control over their online presence")
This isn't about any institution (such as the EU) running infra for the people, and with a federated system, it's not necessary to share these services, which they hint at in "Public institutions should communicate with their citizens on open platforms, not ones that require creating an account"
I think the concern is valid, but full self-sovereignty is not a realistic outcome either. We can't hope everyone hosts their own infrastructure, farms their own food and develops their own curricula for their children's schooling.
Would you prefer the institutions to be as local/small as possible (neighborhood, server hosted by the "tech guy" in a group of friends or a family)?
For what it's worth, I'm not reading this blog post in terms of rights but rather responsibilities, specifically
In any free society, it is the right of every citizen to access and comment on the news, decisions, and reasonings of their government. We believe it is a government’s responsibility to ensure this right for its constituents. Public institutions should communicate with their citizens on open platforms, not ones that require creating an account and sending personal data to a self-serving tech company.
The rights are the citizens' and the responsibilities to uphold those rights lie with the institutions that hold power.
Social sovereignty sounds great, but I was hoping it would mean things like, if I want to post something and have someone else in some other country read it, we are sovereign and thus we can decide what we want to communicate. Not the governments of the countries that we live in. That would be great!
I'm not sure how you would enforce this in general, but a key part of it is the right to encrypted communication, which the EU seems to be opposed to at the moment. So, I'm not very sympathetic to the EU complaining that Twitter has a biased algorithm or whatever. Every social network is inevitably biased in one way or another.
jzb | 2 months ago
I agree wholeheartedly with the message in the blog, but I found the tone a bit cringy and it seems to me to be preaching to the converted. IMO this is one of the things that the FSF/GNU have gotten wrong over the years -- using messaging that gets applause from the people who are already true believers and provokes skepticism or annoyance in people outside their bubble.
An example: "They let their message be governed by the whims of out-of-touch and overpaid people who believe they should have unchecked power. We cannot let this stand."
The "overpaid" thing is just a lazy jab that doesn't really land. "out-of-touch... people who believe they should have unchecked power". So, it'd be OK if they were in touch people? Isn't it bad enough they want unchecked power?
I hope the new leadership at Mastodon can find ways to appeal to people who are outside the current audience. I could be wrong, but I don't think this is quite the right approach.
technomancy | 2 months ago
Ugh, can we please stop conflating recommendation algorithms with "the algorithm"? I've come to expect this from clueless news outlets, but the official Mastodon blog can surely do better?
Sorting your timeline chronologically is an algorithm.
chris-evelyn | 2 months ago
How else would you explain the situation to nontechnical people?
„The Algorithm“ has become a common expression and that sucks, but I have failed to find a better way to make my point succinctly to people who don’t know (and would rather not care) what an actual algorithm is.
pgeorgi | 2 months ago
"Corporate social media platforms employ algorithms that decide if an institution's communication like their posts are shown to any other user, and the context in which they are shown."
It's clearer about the impact, namely "you, the citizen, might not even see what the institution publishes because something at the corporation decides against it" and it links the term "algorithm" in its vernacular meaning with the situation without being imprecise.
withoutboats | 2 months ago
I am not enthusiastic about the framework of "digital sovereignty" in which rights belong (as is repeated here) to "institutions," rather than people. It is the same EU which is so concerned about its own digital sovereignty which has repeatedly considered making illegal end to end encrypted communication. Obviously the EU should not be using platforms like Twitter that are owned and operated by capricious fascists, but neither should a justice framework centering the rights of state institutions become the basis for our conversation.
pgeorgi | 2 months ago
The blog post is about institutions' digital sovereignty, and the rights they themselves have if they run their own infra ("The term digital sovereignty means that an institution has autonomy and control over their online presence")
This isn't about any institution (such as the EU) running infra for the people, and with a federated system, it's not necessary to share these services, which they hint at in "Public institutions should communicate with their citizens on open platforms, not ones that require creating an account"
vpr | 2 months ago
I think the concern is valid, but full self-sovereignty is not a realistic outcome either. We can't hope everyone hosts their own infrastructure, farms their own food and develops their own curricula for their children's schooling.
Would you prefer the institutions to be as local/small as possible (neighborhood, server hosted by the "tech guy" in a group of friends or a family)?
For what it's worth, I'm not reading this blog post in terms of rights but rather responsibilities, specifically
The rights are the citizens' and the responsibilities to uphold those rights lie with the institutions that hold power.
lacker | 2 months ago
Social sovereignty sounds great, but I was hoping it would mean things like, if I want to post something and have someone else in some other country read it, we are sovereign and thus we can decide what we want to communicate. Not the governments of the countries that we live in. That would be great!
I'm not sure how you would enforce this in general, but a key part of it is the right to encrypted communication, which the EU seems to be opposed to at the moment. So, I'm not very sympathetic to the EU complaining that Twitter has a biased algorithm or whatever. Every social network is inevitably biased in one way or another.
pm | 2 months ago