@spinflip So that gives you the opportunity for network-level control -- what the big instances do, or request, the smaller ones will, in general, have to abide with. Or find themselves outside the network (and hence: less able to disrupt).

The on-instance tools also need to improve. And policies and procedures need to exist, as well as staff to deal with stuff (or automation to make up for shortage of people).

Short answer: both instance /and/ network.

2/

@spinflip There's a fair amount which can be done at the instance level (especially for larger instances). But with enough abuse within the network, you're going to see either major disruption, or major partitioning, or both. That is: instances not talking to one another, or talking only to subsets of the entire network. For dealing with abuse, this is actually probably useful /as a short-term mitigation/, but in the long run you'd want greater robustness.

3/

@dredmorbius I honestly see that sort of partitioning as a requirement for a successful fediverse. You're never going to sew everyone on here agreeing with each other or even tolerating each others' presence: siloed communities with carefully guarded bridges between is the least bad realistic model I can picture.

This also means that instances *need* to develop ways to moderate themselves without relying on Eugen for everything. More email (independent servers), less reddit.

@spinflip Agreed. Gargron still drives development, which means UI/UX, and more importantly, protocols and data schemas.

I also think Usenet's Cabal may be a useful admin model. Independent operators, but cooperating on interoperability.

I'm trying to sort how this stuff is organising as is right now, and I'm starting to suspect that it largely /isn't/. I've just created a List with about 30 of the largest / most significant Instance admins.

1/

@spinflip Not that that's a way to /reach/ them or even to have a dedicated conversation, but at least I can check on Admin chatter from time to time.

Or just @Elizafox polluting the list ;-)

2/

@dredmorbius I agree that many improvements are needed around here, but at some point those changes are going to have to start coming from the instances (hopefully informed by inter-instance communication). That might need protocol tinkering in these early days, but ultimately I'd hope to see a stable minimal protocol being built upon by diverse instances, with a living development community working on important non-core features like moderation queues

@dredmorbius the designer is always going to have soft power in some form, of course, but it doesn't have to be repressive. Pissing Eugen off badly enough to get your instance blocked from mas.soc isn't that catastrophic when users can easily register new accounts on other instances.

@spinflip I see the principle power channels as:

1. Setting tone, standard, and policy on a flagship instance and, by extension, through other instances, based on moral strength. (Soft)

2. Defining capabilities and limitations through protocols. (Medium)

3. Creating institutions and community among instances and instance admins (Soft)

4. Blocking and muting patterns of individuals and instances. (Hard)

That is, leading by example, and within limited bounds setting hard limits.

1/

@spinflip The interesting thing for me being that the routes by which power can be effected are probably going to do a lot to define just what power exists and what results it accomplishes.

And: if Gargron doesn't step in to address these himself, others will. It would probably be better if he, or trusted admins, lead, at least initially.

2/