I think lots of boomers and gen-x do care. (At least the ones I know). They just aren’t tech literate enough to do anything about it.

I think we need more privacy oriented devices and software with simple ux, and advertising that isn’t targetted at the tech community.

Run some TV ads for a privacy enabled smartphone, and play up how it works just the same as your current phone but doesn’t spy on you. Shit like that.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, defederation should be removed from the protocol. (And replaced with a default ban list that can be overriden by the user).

Each instance should basically just be a set of default settings that are used to access the same shared pool of content.

This removes the new user hurdle, because they can now join any instance and not be worried that they are making some important, permanent decision. If they find that they don’t like something about the instance, they can tweak their settings later.

Also, some of the other solutions to this issue carry significant risks. Pushing users towards a ‘default’ instance increases centralization. Apps that are preconfigured to use a specific instance are even worse (since people wont want to change instance if it means giving up a familiar app). Without some degree of vigilance decentralized services tend to centralize over time. This gives too much power over the entire fediverse to a handful of instance admins. If an instance with 60% of all users starts defederating all smaller instances, most users will just migrate to the larger instance.

This isn’t just some theoretical that I pulled out of my ass, its an easily abusable weakness of federated services. It has been abused in the past, and there is no reason to believe it wont be abused again.

Google used it to kill XMPP. Facebook will almost certainly use it to kill mastodon, once they siphon enough users and content to build a critical mass. Microsoft is so notorious for using this strategy that they has their own internal phrase for it: Embrace, Extend, Extinguish.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend,_and_extinguish

Yeah… fuck that lol. Why would you ruin pefectly good FOSS by knowingly slapping proprietary adware crap on top of it.

LineageOS for microg: degoogled android. DuckDuckGo: search. Firefox: web browser. Ublock origin: ad blocker. Proton: email. OsmAnd+: maps.

Only google product I still use is youtube, but I have made some efforts here:

On desktop pc I use firefox with sponserblock and ublock origin to hide ads and automatically skip sponsered content. I also have an addon called unhook, which hides recommendations, ‘people also watched’ etc.

I also use and recommend Odysee as a youtube alternative.

On my TV I use SmartTubeNext, on my phone I use revanced.

I host my own music server with navidrome (and my own video media server with Jellyfin). But when I dont have access to that, I also use ViMusic as a youtube music replacement for (degoogled) android.

Can absolutely recommend any and all of the tools I listed.

Your points are valid, but that doesn’t mean we should do nothing. Enforcing federation and using copyleft licensing are both strong defenses against centralization and network dominance by a well funded third party.

As far as GPL goes, from what I’ve seen, big tech companies tend to take it pretty seriously. There is no reason we shouldn’t be using that, and other license protections if we have the option.

As for natural centralization over time, I think that is a far less urgent problem than the current risks we are facing, those being major network fragmentation due to the use of defederation, and the risk of centralization around a proprietary platform and/or instance.

Removal of defederation and strong copyleft licensing seem to be natural first steps in combatting that risk.

So block them and move on. Or if you disagree with them that badly, push to have that instance/community added to a public blocklist/filter. Defederation, besides being an overly authoritarian solution, damages the network in a way that can and will make Lemmy into a worse place for its users.

As instances start to defederate, it will matter more and more which instance a user signs up to. This will push users towards larger instances. As instances get larger, they will become less and less reliant on 3rd party instances for content, those instance admins will be incentivized to defederate from them, as they will a) not have as much control over those instances, and b) start to view them as competitors rather than collaborators.

The beauty of Lemmy and federation generally, is that information appears centralized to it’s users, despite being decentralized in reality.

The more defederation is used, the more centralized Lemmy becomes, whilest giving a more fractured, confusing, and disorganized experience to its users.

Defederation will kill Lemmy. It needs to removed from the protocol before it becomes too widely abused.

I see Lemmy going down in one of two ways:

In fighting and fragmentation with overzealous use of defederation leading to walled gardens, and a terrible user experience.

Or

A major player like google or microsoft sees the potential in Lemmy. Starts their own highly funded instance that is full of useful features and a wonderful smooth UX. (That is all proprietary and only usable on their instance, naturally) Then when the majority of users are on their instance, defederate from everywhere else. (If you don’t think this can happen, just look at what google did to xmpp).

Seems like just another reason why defederation should be completely removed from the protocol. It’s way too easy to abuse and force centralisation.

There are other far less destructive and abusable ways of dealing with spam and content moderation.

I maintain that it’s better to give the users the control, and allow them to decide which instances, communities, and users they want to be exposed to. Bottom up moderation, instead of top down.

For example, instances can provide suggested ‘block’ lists (much like how an ad blocker works) and users can decide whether or not to apply those lists at their own discretion.

By forcing federation, the network stays decentralized. Maintaining community blacklists that can be turned on or off by the individual user protects against heavy handed moderation and censorship, whilst also protecting users from being exposed to undesirable content.

Defederation is not the answer. Honestly, it’s such a powerful and destructive tool that I question whether it should exist period.

Users should be treated like adults who are capable of determining by themselves what content they are comfortable with seeing.

If I don’t want to see an extremist political community on my feed, I block that community myself. If an instance is full of such communities, I block that instance myself.

I don’t want or need some other random on the internet to make judgement calls on what content I can or cannot interact with.

Defederation is a tactical nuke, that if used incorrectly will destroy the freedom, decentralization and openness of Lemmy, and replace it with a far more centralized series of walled gardens.

I fear that people are trying to recreate the reddit model on Lemmy. Lemmy is not reddit, Lemmy is better than reddit. Reddit is top down, Lemmy is bottom up. We don’t need more mod control, we need more user control.

I would love to see more features built for user moderation of content. Perhaps I could subscribe to another users blocklist, or follow their ‘recommended communities’. Instances themselves could maintain suggested block lists, and users could chose to enable or disable them at their own discretion.

I’m really not sure that defederation has any place at all. Even things like spam and bot instances I think would be better handled by a blocklist (enabled by default even), that users can turn on or off as they see fit.