Hacker News Reader

Comment by Erikun | Hacker News Reader

It feels like every federated network will be judged by the worst actor in that network, whether or not they are isolated from each other. As a result it doesn't matter (for public opinion) if there are strictly moderated mastodon instances because they will be associated with the free-for-all ones by the Mastodon name alone. This is different from how the internet as a whole is interpreted, where both HN and 4chan can exist without impacting each others reputation.

View on HN

My thoughts exactly. Hell there are plenty of decent boards on 4chan, but everyone judges the site by the horrible ones (not that i particularly enjoy 4chan, but I know plenty of sane and reasonable people who do).

This magical perfectly moderated wonderland led by the Mr Rodgers or whoever they think should be at the top of these things doesn't exist to my knowledge. Not saying it's right what people are doing, but it strikes me as picking and choosing when these complaints ultimately boil down to "yeah turns out there's shitty people"

Any single site should be judged by the worst elements it allows.

I think the point is that the fediverse is more of a protocol than a site. That said people who run well moderated sites on the fediverse should probably try to distance themselves from the rest lest they get rolled up in the inevitable backlash when someone with media presence discovers other sites.

Clearly. 4chan is a site, however. It’s not a relevant comparison.

"It will be judged" a way doesn't mean it makes any sense to judge it that way. Eventually, people will get wise to being mislead to think there's nothing of value there by such a faulty metric.

It's really just obnoxious journalists that shape this kind of public opinion too, who well, nobody sane really trusts anymore.

I used to think this too, but as it turns out there is always a younger generation not jaded to the lies that fall for them every single time.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com