Show me an intelligent social media platform; I will show you a dead platform

Showing all posts about technology

Show me an intelligent social media platform; I will show you a dead platform

5 August 2026

Jorijn Schrijvershof’s decision to close the Mastodon instance toot.community, which he established in late 2024, highlights many of the difficulties facing instance administrators on the decentralised social media platform:

Every day, I deal with spam, bots, technical issues, abuse reports, and user conflicts. Much of the moderation ends up being about personal disagreements rather than actual rule-breaking.

As I wrote last week, anyone can set up a Mastodon instance if they want to, but the majority are labours of love, including Aus Social, of which I am a member. They’re not money-spinners.

Unlike centralised social media platforms, such as Twitter/X and Threads, Mastodon instances are usually funded by their founders, together with any donations members might make:

There’s also the financial side. I’m very grateful to everyone who donated, but donations haven’t covered costs for a long time. I’ve had to shoulder most of the expenses, time, and responsibility myself.

It’s also a mistake to believe Mastodon is an oasis of thoughtful and considerate discourse. It isn’t always. There’s nothing wrong with robust discussion, but hostility and antagonism is another matter, even if it’s not of quite the same intensity present on other platforms.

Conflict may not be widespread across Mastodon, but dealing with it, as a someone who is effectively a volunteer admin, is time consuming, and disheartening:

More importantly, I don’t enjoy how people interact on social media anymore. Too often, conversations turn hostile or confrontational. A small amount of conflict and bad actors takes up a disproportionate amount of time and energy.

This was this idea, in the early days of Mastodon and Bluesky, that things would be different, better.

People migrating there thought they were leaving conflict and hostility that was rife elsewhere, behind. And for a time things did feel different. Interactions were relatively civil. There were those who feared this state of affairs would not last though.

But social media is social media, no matter what the platform. Wherever people congregate online, antagonism is seldom far away. As with bad news, discord sells.

The operators of the commercial, centralised platforms, relish tension. It brings in the punters, it engages (and enrages) them. And if the conversation only ever goes in circles, who cares?

Someone once said something like “show me an intelligent TV show, and I’ll show you a dead TV show.” I don’t recall the precise wording, but that was the gist of the quote.

Might it have been Kerry Packer or Rupert Murdoch?

It seems though the same principle applies to social media platforms. But antagonism is not restricted to social media, it’s rampant across the web, to the point it seems endemic to the web.

You don’t need to be a detective to work out why either. The low barrier to entry. The ease with which identities can be concealed. These are of course also advantages, but suit bad actors nicely. People, who supposedly, wouldn’t behave so poorly in face-to-face interactions. Supposedly.

And since every last user of a decentralised social media platform is unlikely to adhere to community guidelines, we’re probably going to see more Mastodon instances close. As with toot.community, trolls and disputes between members won’t be solely to blame, but they’ll be contributing factors.

There’s a thought that social media will kill itself eventually. Users are railing against heavy handed algorithms, abundant AI slop, and misinformation, among other annoyances.

But that day seems far off. Big tech will continue supporting the centralised platforms where the problems are at their worst, particularly if they remain profitable.

Sadly, it’s the not so well resourced decentralised social media platforms that are more at risk of being “killed” though, unless they can receive more support.

LinkedIn users can report AI slop, but what about the rest of it?

1 August 2026

Members of the professional network will be able to flag posts they think are AI generated. I haven’t been a LinkedIn participant in years — I have a personal website, why would I? — but it seems to me slop has been a problem on the platform since before AI was what it is.

The threat of toxic content on decentralised social media platforms

31 July 2026

Mastodon is a truly decentralised micro-bloging platform. Anyone sufficiently motivated, and technically proficient, can start their own instance, or community.

Depending on the administrator, instances can be completely isolated, accessible only to its members, or federated, that is, interconnected to all other instances that are likewise federated.

Presently there eight-thousand instances, give or take, and each has, or can have, its own individual community guidelines and moderation policies.

This can mean content permissible on one instance might be unacceptable somewhere else. But if that instance is federated, members’ posts may be visible to just about all Mastodon members.

It’s something that can allow content of a toxic nature to disseminate freely across the Mastodon network, as there are no standard platform-wide moderation policies.

And according to research carried out by Pasan Kamburugamuwa and Olga Scrivner, toxic content is becoming more prevalent on Mastodon.

Tens of millions of people migrated to places like Mastodon and Bluesky, to escape the toxicity that had become rife on other social media platforms. It’s unfortunate, to say the least, that content many consider unacceptable, is taking hold.

Mastodon’s decentralised structure is one of its advantages. For one, it means no single person, or entity, can assume control of the entire network, and do with it as they please.

But decentralisation is a double-edged sword, if it allows people to set up shop in their own corner, and spread content others don’t want to see.

Finding a solution in an environment such as Mastodon’s will be challenging.

AI does not compose my pickup lines, I do, have the t-shirt to prove it

29 July 2026

Natalie Kaufman, writing for the Wall Street Journal, about an apparent trend in early twenty-somethings, to rely on AI agents to supply them with conversation starters, and pickup lines.

The article is paywalled, but would you really want to read about this?

I think these things are best learned through experience, and watching other people, rather than turning to AI for pointers. It gives me an idea for a t-shirt though.

Some websites and blogs sport not by AI buttons, as a way of reassuring readers their content was written by a person, and not an AI agent.

People who want others to know their conversation starters, and, where applicable, pickup lines, are their own effort, could wear a not by AI-style t-shirt, perhaps bearing the slogan “AI does not compose my pickup lines, I do”.

It might help eliminate the confusion as to what banter is AI-generated, and what is not.

For the record, my pickup lines are reserved for the only person who reads this website…

Update: Simon at Firesphere has created a mockup of my no-AI t-shirt idea. Green is an ideal colour choice to, it’s affirming, and noticeable. Awesome, thanks Simon.

My old red iPhone SE 2, no AusAlert alert, much embarrassment

28 July 2026

AusAlert is a new, nation wide, emergency warning system being rolled out by the Australian government. Should there be a crisis or disaster of some sort, authorities will be able to send warnings to mobile phones in the vicinity.

The alerts, which will be heralded by a short, but loud siren sound, are designed to override both silent, and do not disturb (DND) modes. That’s a good thing, as I avail myself of both constantly.

To test the system, an AusAlert message was to be sent to every mobile device in Australia, yesterday afternoon. It is unlikely nationwide broadcasts will occur regularly, if at all, as alerts are only intended to go only to phones in a specific region, if something is wrong. But saying every mobile device in Australia would receive the test warning was something of an exaggeration.

At 2PM AEST yesterday, my phone sat silent, even though phones all around me wailed for about ten seconds. As it happens though, AusAlerts cannot reach every phone, or mobile device, after all. For one, devices switched off, or in aeroplane mode, would not have received the test warning.

The same goes for older devices, of which mine, an iPhone SE 2, must be considered as far as AusAlert goes. I had heard “older” phones would instead receive a backup “presidential alert”, but I saw nothing. Landlines are likewise incapable of receiving the warnings, though I believe plans are in the works to include them eventually.

Later yesterday afternoon, Kristy McBain, the Australian Emergency Management Minister, said ninety-four percent of phone towers sent the alert.

That sounds a little low for what is meant to be national warning framework. It seems to me a lot of people could miss out in the event of a crisis. Still, the system is a work-in-progress, and doubtless coverage will move closer to one-hundred percent of towers.

I (still) have an iPhone SE 2, which I am reluctant to part with. It’s one of the (RED) red ones, which I had struggled to obtain. So I’m still using it. This is disassociated not Daring Fireball.

But I felt slightly embarrassed my phone didn’t join in the test. Most people knew what was happening, but some — despite pre-test publicity — seemed confused. I needn’t have fretted about my old red phone though, I doubt anyone had the slightest idea it remained mute during the drill.

RELATED CONTENT

Australia, smartphones, technology

Webmentions, easier said than done?

27 July 2026

I like the idea of Webmentions, a protocol informing a blogger, website owner, that another blog/website has linked to them. Similar to pingbacks, Webmentions aren’t just another tech-gimmick though. In 2017 they were adopted as a recommendation by the W3C, the international body publishing standards for the web.

They’re also favoured within the IndieWeb/SmallWeb communities. So far, so good. The drawback however comes in their implementation.

It’s not a simple case of adding a few lines of code to a template, or, where available, installing a plug-in (something I aim to keep a minimum). The process requires jumping through a number of hoops, something, I gather, that ends up deterring a number of people.

Webmentions sound ideal for people who enjoy tinkering with their websites, but remain on the back burner here for the time being.

RELATED CONTENT

blogs, IndieWeb, SmallWeb, technology

AI here to stay, accept it, says Australian government, vows artist copyright protection

17 July 2026

Anthony Albanese, the Australian Prime Minister, says he wants to make Australia an “attractive destination” for investment in AI development, during a speech delivered on Wednesday.

Albanese also wants to balance the opportunities and risks presented by the technologies, particularly concerns that AI uptake will result in widespread job losses.

AI will take away jobs, he said, but will also create new and different lines of work.

Among proposals is a coordinated national framework, rather than a state-by-state approach, that will oversee matters including the construction of AI data centres.

In short, data centres will be required to generate their own power, by way of renewable energy sources, and minimise water consumption.

During his speech, Albanese also gave an undertaking to protect the intellectual property of Australian writers, musicians, artists and journalists:

An artist’s creative endeavour is their work and their property. No company should use Australian books, music, art or news to build or train AI without the artist’s control. That includes the artist’s control of the price and value of their work. Anything less, is theft.

These are words Australian artists and creatives wanted to hear.

Protections will doubtless be included in upcoming legislation, but after rampant marauding of creative material by AI scraper bots in recent years, the move might come too late.

The proposed laws might protect work created in the future, but what of copyrighted content that has already been copied, and digested, by AI agents?

Will AI companies who used creative work in the past be required to offer retrospective remuneration? Will these entities, many of whom are based outside Australia, be the slightest bit concerned by these proposals?

Australian government proposes AI national framework, standards

16 July 2026

Clare Armstrong, writing for the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC):

Australia will seek to harness the benefits of artificial intelligence without losing control of it by tackling challenges such as data centres, copyright, and jobs through a new national framework.

Buoyed, no doubt, by the… success of the social media ban for Australians aged under sixteen, the Australian government is setting its sights on AI.

But I shouldn’t be so cynical.

An Office of AI will be established within the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, and will be tasked with drafting standards guiding development and deployment of the technologies.

Use the AI compass to chart your AI archetype

7 July 2026

Find out where you sit on the AI compass, which is a little similar to the vote compass.

There are thirty AI classifications including sceptic, Luddite, conscientious objector, doomsday prepper, founder, and prophet. Each has a patron saint. Mine is Amanda Askell, though I’m not entirely sure I agree with my archetype, “The True Believer”, but who knows.

Simon Willison — should we dub him Mr AI? — is, according to the compass, “The Garage Tinkerer”, whose patron saint is none other than… Simon Willison. What are the chances?

Australian authors, songwriters, musicians demand payment from AI companies

7 July 2026

Individuals, educational institutions, and other organisations have to make payment in some form or other to access the work of writers, musicians, artists, and other creatives.

It seems like a naive question, but why should it be any different for the tech companies who are presently helping themselves to whatever material they can get their hands on, so as to train their AI agents? Particularly if the same tech companies expect users to pay to access their AI products.

Of course all writers, artists, musicians, etc, wherever they are, should be receiving compensation if any of their work is being used to train AI agents.

« older posts

newer posts »