Submitted by syster in meta

Good news or bad news: Raddle already supports federation

Some of you might be in favor of federation, others are skeptical/against. The Point is, raddle federates already.

First off all I think we should clear out confusion that is caused by different definition we use for the word federation, just to make sure we speak of the same thing when we speak about federation.

I use this definition:

Federation describes a systemic connection and exchange between autonomous systems.

What it does not mean: loosing autonomy, if you don't want to.

But how does raddle federate? What blockshit does it use to make magic?

The system that I describe as raddle consists of 3 elements.

  • Someone that creates and maintains the software.
  • the software and it's hardware infrastructure that is required to let it run
  • a user/friend/comunity that interacts with the software to reach each other

The software allows hyperlinks to refer from raddle to other webpages, other collectives, other whatsoever. It also supports RSS feed reader, so a user could read in one spot content from different server and interact with it, based on the permissions they have on a given website.

The user/friend/community that interacts with the software postmill, is not limited to the interaction with postmill. It is likely that they are organized in others spaces too, and by that create a network between the postmill software and anything else they interact with. The federation works purely by intentional human defined action. It works so well :-p , that I can use even my voice to speak with others about raddle and use my ears and brain (and all the rest of the body that is required to make this crappy body somewhat functional) to receive information that I'll pass over to raddle. This is federation and there is nothing bad about it (except that a world, where we wouldn't depend so much on technology to facilitate our federated interaction, and find more resource efficient means to organize ourselves within this environment without being as much of a burden to it would be exceptional better imho but it seems unreachable atm). So we remain cyborgs for the moment.

This method of federation clearly has some limitation. For example we can't directly engage from within the software postmill in a discourse with kollektiva.social or kollektiva.media. We can also not host a postmill instance, that had a specific regional focus, or being specifically organized around a matter that one wishes to have an entire community dedicated for (I know that some insist that this is something pointless, while other hold arguments of the opposite. If I find the time, and people remain interested in what I have to say on the matter, I might devote some time writing a critique.) , that would be able to directly interact with raddle.

If this would be something worth to accomplish is a different question. The important point for me making this post is:

autonomy, federation and privacy are not exposing or excluding each other.

They can, but it is not an requirement. They can be also very beneficial for each, depending on its implementations.

ziq presented some arguments in an OP why this would be something to better avoid. I'd like to mention, that it s part of a conversation that was prior held with me, where I addressed already parts of it as a mere miss understanding how federation can work.

I don't enjoy repetitive argumentation, so I just make a short comment and then leave a link. Suggesting that federation will inevitable benefit the fashs, the capitalists, the tankies with their left unity scam (I agree on the left unity scam part) to continue the narrative spin with saying raddle is already federated, is as best will a not well thought of argumentation, at worse intentional manipulative. (idk if I'm to harsh/confrontational with those words, take it as an information that I don't like this type of discourse)

Here's the conv: /f/TankiesGonnaTank/127114/-/comment/205523 another conv that is also addressing some other parts is here: /f/AskRaddle/127120

btw: federated software protocol with permission control of who can access the content and whom not does exist. If you're not granted access, you won't see anything, doesn't matter how fash you are. But that's a discussion not worth to have atm, since it's not the details we disagree with, but the mere logic behind federation and autonomy.

−5

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

nbdy wrote

If you click the next window, bam! Federation

6

nbdy wrote

federated software protocol with permission control of who can access the content and whom not does exist.

I mean, that's not entirely accurate. on https://ni.hil.ist (which is mastodon) you can post local-only which remains on the server it originates from. Paired with a locked account where followers are approval only you can absolutely control who sees what.

8

ziq wrote (edited )

If the platforms share the same architecture, it's trivial to mine posts from other instances whether they're set to share the contnet with other instances or not. All it takes is one asshat who wants to accumulate all the content in one place and slap ads/tracking/paywalls on it. Assuming everyone who runs the software will be altruistic is shortsighted. It's much harder to mine content cross-platform.

2

syster OP wrote

Sorry but I have really trouble to understand you. (just so there is no miss understanding on that aspect: I'm fully with you on this left-unity scam. I've always been, even more after reading your zine)

You can share content that is not visable to anyone except those that you give permission to (I'm not speaking about mastodon here). That includes all the spiders and indexing tools that continiously scan webpages, that includes anyone who doesn't have an account with granted permission. You can define content to be visable to people without account, but you don't have to.

You remember these pages where people just needed to click a few buttons and bam, they had a webpage that was harvesting content from others though rss feed, presenting it on their own page but injecting adds and tracking? I don't know if that's still a common thing, but it's really super easy if one uses rss.

Should we disable rss because of that? I would say no.

1

d4rk wrote

and I thought my Left conservative posts were annoying, this is just cringe.

Federation assumes a central zone or server that dictates bedrock policy for other autonomous zones or servers. We don't even have a central server nor do we enforce the same rules on other servers. There is a basic code of ethics but I haven't seen u/ziq banning anyone on other sites for violating rules on raddle.

6

topa wrote

and I thought my Left conservative posts were annoying, this is just cringe.

the trick is to not read either

5

syster OP wrote

and I thought my Left conservative posts were annoying,

I believe you! :-)

Federation assumes a central zone or server

Serious question: Are you serious? Joking? Some insight joke I don't understand?

See, that's how far your reasoning is, from my understanding of what ferderation can be. But maybe, I'd better choose a different word for it ...hmmm. There're many state that use it to describe their political system. kinda feels people reffer to this state similar thingy, while I speak about something else.

1

d4rk wrote (edited )

As I understand it, Federalism combines a general, the central or "federal" government with regional governments in a single political system. Its distinctive feature is a relationship of parity between the two levels of government established. It can thus be defined as a form of government in which powers are divided between two levels of government of equal status[1]. Simple concept really.

You see Federalism is a process, it has a fixed result. Its Cartesian just because you can reduce things to a process doesn't mean that process can have different results, more often than not, it leads to the same problems.

3

syster OP wrote

As I understand it, Federalism combines a general, the central or "federal" government with regional governments in a single political system

Ok. But how does your reply relate to my post then? I've been speaking about an egalitarian federation model, not an hierarchical federation model. It seems you disagree on semantics, without engaging on the presented argumentation.

In other words: you're completly offtopic, but use this as an argument why I'm wrong

2

d4rk wrote

  • Someone that creates and maintains the software.(Central government)
  • the software and it's hardware infrastructure that is required to let it run (single political system)
  • a user/friend/comunity that interacts with the software to reach each other (relationship of parity)

need I say more.

3

syster OP wrote

Someone that creates and maintains the software.(Central government)

As already said, it is not an requirement to have one software, you can have many, developed by many different individuals/communities/collectives.

It's like arguing that dialects/languages need an central organization to evolve. Obvious, it can help to promote one specific dialect over the other, but a central government is not an requirement.

need I say more?

2

d4rk wrote

Having different individuals/communities/collectives is not the point where I equate it to the textbook definition of Federalism as I have said above, but it is that S o m e o n e in this case a single individual/community/collective creates and maintains that of the others thus creating a hegemony.

3

syster OP wrote

where I equate it to the textbook definition of Federalism

right. But I've not been speaking about that kind.

but it is that S o m e o n e in this case a single individual/community/collective creates and maintains that of the others thus creating a hegemony.

Do you differentiate hegemony and culture? Why do you speak english, instead of a language you invented yourself?

1

d4rk wrote

Hegemony within the textbook definition as earlier, is when the use of one aspect of a culture is being standardized as a mode of communication or expression. For example, the policy before in our country against the use of mother tongue.

Culture would be when we agree upon using a certain language or tradition whether implicitly or explicitly. In my case, I am a polyglot, I'm more than happy to use other languages even my own in discussions.But we agreed with english because its mutually intelligible

3

moonlune wrote

What's the point of these posts?

The devs & admins (& at least 10 accounts) don't want federation. Just fork the software and create your own riddle that's federated.

6

CircleA wrote

And somehow it's always brand new users who come here and tell us to change, then promptly leave without contributing anything.

3

syster OP wrote

well for me there are two debates happening simultaneous. One is about the concept of federation itself, and the other is more centers around raddle. People want that raddle stays as it is, in regards of federation. I get that. I'm ok with that.

I still disagree with several arguments that are used to discourage federation in general. Most of the ones I read where based on a misconception of what federating can be like.

See: Some argue that it can be useful to collaborate with other affinity groups and have some prearranged agreements on communication methods that are used (such as: signal group, radio frequencies...and so forth)

ziq argues:

Federation is a shallow fad that rests on the flawed concept of uniting opposing groups in a naive and misguided attempt to reach critical mass.

Why do I need to oppose every affinity group that is not mine, or why can't I federate with affinity groups I am mutal oppose other groups? That doesn't make any sense to me, same goes with the rest of their reasoning. I can't make sense of it, and I'm confused how kind of many people here share the same/similar view as ziq on the matter.

Or is that really just all because we apply different definitions to what federation means? I don't even understand under what definition, that sort of federation ziq speaks of, their arguments would make sense to me.

2

d4rk wrote

Why do I need to oppose every affinity group that is not mine, or why can't I federate with affinity groups I am mutal oppose other groups? Or is that really just all because we apply different definitions to what federation means?

The latter is most likely the problem in this scenario. Nothing wrong with federating, just "a federation". Connecting tactically and building societal conditions is a welcome deal. The fact that there is a concerted effort to have similar definitions, aspirations & struggles is a really good idea, infighting is how societies come into being in the first place. Discourse like ours cannot exist without first entering into our society.

Infighting produces Cultures that represent the topics of the in-group and recognizes thusly rather than cancelling people outright, the ability to sustain a Culture War is the primary responsibility of a society, to confine it within.

Thus lies the problem of Federations. It produces an agreed upon Hegemony from a Central Authority, not only is it oppressive but it is lazy. Hegemony is the work of Federations which is why we consider it evil. u/Ziq was correct in their assertions, uniting opposing groups via hegemony is not what Anarchism nor what Raddle is. It is an insult.

2

syster OP wrote

The latter is most likely the problem in this scenario

I mean, if I follow the definition of federation that you apply, I agree with you. It's just that I use the same word, also for a different definition. I'll remember that, if I come up with such a topic next time.

Infighting produces Cultures that represent the topics of the in-group and recognizes thusly rather than cancelling people outright, the ability to sustain a Culture War is the primary responsibility of a society, to confine it within.

I have trouble to understand you here. Could you rephrase it?

2

d4rk wrote

What makes a society and sustains culture is constant struggle from within using agreed upon terms and definitions as well as traditions that exist within the society. Infighting, which is a thing which textbook federalism see as evil, in this case is a good thing.

4

wantoknow wrote

Why is struggle and fighting good for society?

2

celebratedrecluse wrote

Fuck society, I need to struggle to survive. If you have a problem with it, change this society motherfucker!

3

d4rk wrote

It defines it. Society is defined by internal culture war which maintains a balance of views defined by it's own terms. To win would mean hegemony, to loose would mean extinction.

2