switching.social
It is not about the words but about the level of interest. People who have no interest in technology will not see such essays as nuanced discussions but as lists of warning signs. They may wonder why they are even trying the fediverse when it is so full of risks.
By the way, as far as I know there are no managed hosting services for Friendica?
Non-managed hosting is *way* beyond the scope of switching.social, it requires far too much technical knowledge.
switching.social
Put it this way: when people sign up to Facebook or Twitter, there is *zero* discussion of the risks.
If the Fediverse has extremely detailed discussion of the risks, people may wrongly believe that the Fediverse is much more risky.
I'm not saying we shouldn't talk about risks at all.
But if we talk about risks in great detail, people will go back to centralised (and much higher risk) platforms, because they don't mention risks at all.
switching.social
If you imagine an apple and a chocolate bar, the apple is clearly healthier by every scientific measure.
No food is risk-free, so in theory you should cover the apple in health warnings.
But if the apple came covered in health warnings and the chocolate bar didn't, people would start to think the chocolate bar was healthier.
That, combined with the chocolate bar's sugar hit, would make people abandon the apples altogether.
switching.social
If we cover the Fediverse in health warnings while centralised services have no warnings at all, people will start to think the Fediverse is riskier.
It's the wrong conclusion to draw, but it's how humans tend to assess risk when faced with assymetrical health warnings.
switching.social
If we cover the Fediverse in health warnings while centralised services have no warnings at all, people will start to think the Fediverse is riskier.
Those people would be drawing the wrong conclusion, but it's the conclusion they are likely to draw.
Humans just aren't very good at assessing risk in things they don't know about.
Warnings scare people off, lack of warnings reassure them, despite the worst dangers often having no warnings at all.
switching.social
Symmetrical transparency is great because it lets people weigh up relative risk. I agree that would be best to aim for, but it won't happen because centralised services won't play along.
Asymmetrical transparency can be terrible, because it can give completely the wrong impression and make much lower risks seem like much higher risks.
Bobinas P4G is a social network. It runs on GNU social, version 2.0.1-beta0, available under the GNU Affero General Public License.
All Bobinas P4G content and data are available under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license.