Yeah, I think those are good. I read “The Master and Margarita”, its also about magic (not children’s novel though).

I mean, I wouldn’t have a problem with just doing another fantasy series instead. In my opinion, the magic system is the most unique thing about Harry Potter, because it teaches people certain things about the digital world. You can delete things, you can move things around, you can make things appear and disappear.

That’s what another series would need to replicate, which none of the one I know or you mentioned, do.

I think thats just a thing that will get better over time

You are describing a different thing than what the idea of the fediverse is. Content is collected at an instance and these instances federate. That’s why its called Fediverse: people basically form groups, these group federate. It’s a social thing, there is trust involved. With blockchain, the idea is that you don’t need to trust a central entity.

I think you talk about something like nostr.

I do think that the book carry some important messages like questioning authority, being agents of one’s own life. On the other hand you it is rather conservative and some bad stereotypes.

But the question is: for which novel doesn’t this apply, too? I think one can look past those things if one looks at the overall message here. Also, the universe and the fandom has developed since the original series. Look at the game: its very diverse. Ok, you still have the antisemetic stereotypes, but its definitely a step forward.

So yes, I think the H.P. still has something for society to profit from. The popularity also speaks for itself. If you like it or not, it will stay a part of society for a while.

So instead of banning the whole thing (which is unrealistic in the long run anyways), I think it would be good to embrace its healthy parts for the Fediverse.

Well, the H.P. fandom stands in the center not Rowling or her books. I think one should differentiate with that.

Also: yes, the books contain antisemitic stereotypes, but Rowling herself hasn’t said herself anything antisemitic to my knowledge. Some of her statemets are transphobic, but the Fediverse has enough room to carry out this conflict.

We are not in centralized social media anymore, where you have to be on the same site as everybody else. If you are on the same instance as a transphobe and you oppose that: change instances. If you don’t want to be on an instance that federates with any transphobe content: change to an instance that de-federated with any of those instances. That’s all possible in the Fediverse.

No web3 is skipped. Next comes the social web. The articles name is misleading. CollectiveWeb would be more fitting then web4

Mmh, I remain sceptical

Moderation doesn’t work there.

Its skipped. In between comes the social web/fediverse.

That’s still possible without banning corporations completely from the Fediverse (which will not be possible anyways). It’s just melancholic daydreaming.

That’s black and white thinking and undemocratic. Conservatives respect democracy and should therefore be a part of it.

Also they obviously something to contribute, next to Liberalism and Socialism, Conservatism is one of the biggest political traditions. Let’s not be so stupid to assume that it’s complete bullshit.

Conservatism protects traditional institutions, watches that change is not too fast and traditionally, also warns against too much destructering of traditional societal structures by the market. Maybe modern conservatives don’t necessary do all of that, but it’s a tradition that has earned itself.

Firstly: commerzialization will come eventually anyways.

Secondly: what has all of that to do with democracy? I would hope that the Fediverse thrives to become a democratic place.

Also, the Fediverse is currently still rather small. If it should benefit humanity as a whole, you will not be able to avoid corporations completely.

I don’t want to save the liberal democracy, thanks.

Wow, that’s great. Only the thing that our society is based on for last decades with a tradition of hundreds of years. Great, down the toilet with it! Hope you got some idea with what to replace it …

You can have that. But I also want conservatives in the Fediverse to simulate societal debate better here. Defederation still exists, of course.

It’s not about agreeing on everything but about finding common grounds again between opposing parties that at least share some common values.

What do you mean? Sure with Nazis and Tankies I’m okay to split with permanentaly, but other instances its a dynamic, always changing process. This is much more what societal debate looks like than on Twitter/Threads currently.

In the Fediverse, finding together is encouraged because it increases your user base. On Twitter, fight means more money for the owner, so fights and splits are encouraged there.

So yes, Fediverse is better at simulating societal debate. My article was never about preventing splitting in the Fediverse COMPLETELY (this will and should never happen), its about preventing a split of democratic forces into tribes that fight each other and don’t manage to unite and that are in constant fight like on Twitter/Threads.

I’m not saying that your instance needs to federate with her. But it would be good to have her as part of the Fediverse and say: look world, in the Fediverse, people can discuss things much better than on Twitter.

That’s all I’m saying. I’m not even saying she is a good or bad person. I do think some of her statements are transphobic, but I also think she got radicalized because of the cultur war. I’m pretty sure in the Fediverse, once discussions are not heated up by algorithms, some people might become more moderate again.

Will this be the case for Rowling? Not necessarily. But she should still be in the Fediverse.

(Or at least at some point; counting her in this early may have been too provocative)

Sounds fine at first glance

Free fediverse(s) makes sense, building on top of that already floating term sounds sensible

Ok, I may have blown the discussion a bit out of proposition earlier. It’s just that I thought you meant basically the whole Fediverse. The name “Free Fediverse” is a bit misleading imo.

Strategically, that’s an opportunity for the free fediverses today.

Yeah, probably. Question is how big it will become. Let’s see.

Well, there are always people who want a more safe space and in turn leave (or threaten to leave) a certain environment. Whether the environment then choses to make itself more safe or to stay the same is a careful consideration. Making it more safe might make other users leave, but also attract others to the instance.

In the same way, there will be people calling for more openess/“free speech”, prompting the same consideration.

For me, the basis of this is given by law; everything else needs to be negotiated dynamically, how open/save an instance is might change over time depending on its users.

Now, in this debate, identity politics tends to favour more safety by default, which might make sense at first, but if you follow it through consistent, you end up in something like garden eden. Because there, everything is safe, you don’t need to fear any threat whatsoever, but you are also not really doing anything. If you default to “safe is always better” you end up in a totalitarian system.

So safety/openness is in general a worth consideration and it should be dynamically debated. Maybe in a few years, consent-based federation proves itself to be a best-practice to make a place safer for trans people and becomes a standard; then we all adapt it happily - that would be fine with me; but if so, I see it at the end of a process.