J
> "who said “trust”? I just want to have it. The more the better."
So you're fine with, for example, an algorithm subtly manipulating the information stream to gaslight you?
Because EXACTLY THAT has happened, is happening, and will (eventually) happen to any feed controlled by a central authority. No matter who the authority is.
I'd rather take a stochastic chance of getting as much different information as possible from non-centralized sources.
> "I … like the idea that when protests break out in Tahrir Square, I can subscribe to a global feed that gives me an idea of what is going on…"
I think the fact you would automatically trust such a global feed is incredibly problematic.
I'd rather trust people. Individually. And even then my trust only extends so far.
I had a similarly long discussion yesterday about Epistemology. There is a sense in which I am continuing that here today.
I'm saying I don't want to participate in anything global. I'm saying I want a protocol designed to be actively HOSTILE to participating in anything global.
Maybe others still yearn to suck from the teats of some centralized authority, but I've learned my lesson and I'm not going back. I'd rather not have social media at all than regress to a state where the protocols can serve a profit motive or an authoritarian.
Even if it is tarted up to look like something different.
I hope not. 'Global trending' requires a central authority with a view into EVERY message on the system. And the last two decades have convinced me ANYTHING requiring such centralized access is dangerous and will be misused.
Federation is the ONLY answer if want you want is something the users control. Because, in worst case, we can fall back to whitelists instead of blacklists and tunnel the messages.
Have we learned NOTHING?