@uninventive@bowreality@atomicpoet@socialmedianews If a few people with “real” day jobs can run the very instance we’re on, then there’s absolutely no excuse for the CBC not to as well. I’m sure the transmitter antennas were put up before people had radios in their homes.
I expect that #qoto here will federate with the #Meta servers, as it federates with just about everyone short of CSA or active DoS attacks. And that's fine with me.
On the other hand, I'm very sympathetic to those who decide otherwise, and are unwilling to federate with the Meta servers on the basis that Meta has a history of being evil, and are almost certainly up to something undesirable. So their not-federating is also fine with me.
One of the great things about the #fediverse is that different servers have different policies! There's no need to talk everyone else into being the same...
@freemo@admitsWrongIfProven Agree with "block by default, opt-in by choice..." for users not being aware / users getting surprised one day (even those who know still too late to click after)...
And then generally how unethical they are by their own existance, practices (past and present history.)
Just they are not in line with a lot / not supporters of many parts of freedom / caring.
Here's a list of #iptables and #ip6tables commands for admins can copy and paste into their #Fediverse server's command line to bulk-block all packets to and from IPv4 and IPv6 addresses owned by #Meta:
https://datakra.sh/assets/lizard.txt (the 2,024 domains listed here have been found to use either of 26 IPv4 addresses, which I have updated the list on my Google drive with.)
I wonder if people threatening to block Facebook's/Meta's new ActivityPub-compatible social media network also automatically block emails coming from gmail.com.
This is annecdata - not a serious academic study. Adjust your expectations accordingly. When I first got online, the World Wide Web was still in its infancy - so CompuServe was my gateway to the Internet. I loved their well organised chat room. A couple of clicks and I could be discussing Babylon 5 with […]
@Edent I knew someone who was horrified when Google integrated Deja News into search results - they had a respectable job in finance, but suddenly the top results for their name were Usenet posts made when they were 17, mostly enthusiastic replies to offers of porn
@Edent you are describing the #geekproblem with the blindness to good #UX how can we communicate the "problem" to our #geeks as have been trying to do this for 20 years and they still don't want to hear it
Abgesehen davon, dass ich TikTok nicht mag weil ich deren Zweck nicht einsehe, nutzen es sehr viele und vor allem sehr junge Menschen und dies auch kommerziell. Wie eben YouTube & Co. und eigentlich nicht viel anders aber auch als politische Propaganda eine Konkurenz zusätzlich.
🧵 …ergänzend zum obigen Toot noch diesen @tagesschau Artikel, in dem ua auch "vermutlich auf #TikTok" erwähnt wird. Meiner Meinung nach eine ergänzendes #Argument zum obigen Thema im #Video.
🧵 …nun ja, dies war nur eine Frage der Zeit. Es war mehr als vorhersehbar, dass TikTok sich wehrt um den Markt abzugeben und dabei zu verlieren. Meine Meinung und Kritik diesbezüglich, siehst du in den Toots oben.
»Netzpolitik: Tiktok-Mutter Bytedance will mit Klage drohendes US-Verbot abwenden.
Geforderter Verkauf "weder kommerziell, noch technologisch, noch rechtlich" möglich.«
We, the moderation and administration of tech.lgbt, are signing the Anti-Meta Fedi Pact in fellowship with our peer communities. (https://vantaa.black/pact)
There is over a decade of precedent that Facebook will not have users' best interests as their guiding principle but rather profit margins, if it joins the Fediverse.
We at tech.lgbt have long held the belief that corporation owned instances are a threat to the core of the Fediverse: freedom for users to be themselves and to be a part of their communities. The 2010s saw the loss of online freedom when the majority of the Web was consolidated into a few destinations, and Facebook entering here could lead us back to centralization. Furthermore, NDAs for server admins will constrain our sovereignty online by binding us legally from disrupting their business.
We are not products. We are people, and we do not welcome Facebook in this space.
@nanianmichaels@mods I just think instead of immediately promising to block it it's better to work around it. It's a fact it will federate, we should make the best of that to try to build the decentralised internet. In my opinion this just feels like putting your head in the sand and pretending outside influences don't exist. Blocking that potential instance won't solve the core problem of the internet being too centralised, it'll make it worse by alienating users.
You're free to disagree and maybe I'm too optimistic in this, but I think it's better to approach this with an open mind until definitive proof comes that this will cause damage to the fediverse, but I see this as a potentially good thing. If companies want to join the fediverse that means they see profit in it. That's not necessarily a bad thing, it could also mean that they notice how they can't forever keep up the walled gardens of their current platforms.
lol… just listening to the #wired podcast about how BS is already shadow banning users in an effort to censor “nude” content. Their framing is so condescending.
“Oh golly. Gosh darn it. Those tiny new internet startups should’ve known better.” types of comments abound.
It was almost like the pod was pandering to an investor.
Does anyone know how many news outlets billionaire Dorsey influences via investments?
@kevin@fediversenews Before we lose the thread, have you heard the Angélique Kidjo version of Remain in Light? She covered the entire album a couple years ago, and it’s amazing to hear what an actual African (Benin, in this case) makes of it and feeds back into the material.
@timbray There is a reason Dorsey wants to control the protocol & convince white people that there is not a fascist recruitment problem as long as they use a personal algorithm that lets them ignore it online.
What’s at stake isn’t just about the code. It’s about reach, and instance domination, monetization, and much more.
When #META invites you to secretive talks about the #fediverse and you are told to not share anything about those talks, be it by spoken agreement or an NDA — remember admiral Ackbar. It's a trap.
If you're invited to such conversations, instead of signing any paperwork, make it a requirement that all communication is at least under the Chatham House rule [1]. Meaning you are free to share what is being discussed but without naming any participant. It's an acceptable compromise IMHO at the start. But should also have an agreed timeline on switching to full transparency.
For some odd reason when rich people offer you something for free, no one makes comparisons to creepy dudes in vans cruising for kids walking home alone after school & offering kids candy or a puppy
Google is taking away free access to their apps. No one asks why it was free in the 1st place
Github used its position as a "free" code repository to train ChatAI bots, using your code unpaid
"Free" social media apps like Twitter keeps your data to sell while suspending your account
I’m of the belief that there needs to be a “lobby” where new people try out software to decide whether they like it, and federation is important for spreading word of mouth.
On the other hand, #Meta has done horrible things to people, and I will never be their friend so long as Zuck and co. run the show.
I question @film_girl’s assumptions that in order to decentralize we must roll out the welcome mat to the biggest centralizing force on the Internet.
But this isn’t just about centralization, it’s about a well-known peddled of evil arriving on the scene. And I’m not being hyperbolic here. Meta is to social media what Dow is to chemicals.
To everyone who expresses concerns about Meta—you’re right!
@film_girl Is it kneejerk? I’ve been in the social media business for 15 years, and there’s not a month that goes by in which Meta doesn’t do something morally repugnant.
In fact, I post those stories every day.
I don’t care how good Meta’s engineers are. They’ve done some of the most rotten and morally questionable things ever in the Internet. Because of Meta’s actions, people have died.
You think people are “just” being kneejerk about that? Next to Zuck, Musk is a Boy Scout.
@Uraael@atomicpoet there’s always a winner/dominant player. That doesn’t mean multiple things can’t coexist and even have their own robust communities, but there’s always a winner. This is especially true in open standards. Winning isn’t important to everyone and that’s good. But a whole bunch of people who are very vocal sure want Activity Pub more broadly (tho most are focused on Mastodon almost exclusively) to win.
wow the #Reddit CEO AMA is a PR disaster. He is avoiding most of the questions, not mentioning the upcoming moderator protest, and completely refusing to take any responsibility or budge down on their controversial decisions.
I love Reddit and don't want to see it die but unless their leadership changes course... it's going straight into the internet graveyard.
@rolle I just did a short thread on why, in short: because it might be a simple alternative to the broken thing they have now. Normal users don’t care about federation and what have you.
@rolle to normal users, internet is not made out of servers. They don’t know what servers are and they don’t care. To them internet is just this magic thing that’s always there and they can talk to their friends, have fun and watch videos.
they won't even say what they mean because they know what it shows about them.**
To be fair I saw many posts like these when I first landed here. (From some very shady servers most everyone seems to have blocked.) Bigots do this, they try to claim spaces. The real question is what is the response to this garbage? Was there any?
New Term:
Troll Block - verb - demeaning comments at a target individual or group followed by an immediately blocking or canceling the target. #socialmedia #mastodon
By making any User Content available through the Services, you hereby grant to Bluesky and its subsidiaries, affiliates, licensee, successors, and assigns (the “Bluesky Parties”) an irrevocable, non-exclusive, perpetual, transferable, worldwide, royalty-free license, with the right to sublicense (through multiple tiers of sub-licensing), to use, copy, modify, adapt, crop, edit, creative derivative works, distribute, publicly display, publicly perform and otherwise exploit in any media now known or hereafter devised, your User Content, in whole or in part
I don't really think I see why everyone is so up in arms about #meta starting up an activity based server and joining the fediverse.
Other than being owned/controlled by a corporation rather than she rando, how is their server going to be any different?
It's not like they can just take everything over. If you don't want to federate, you, or your instance admins, have the power to block. So why is this such a big ordeal?
Countless examples of this in the tech industry. In the comms space, look at what happened with XMPP.
Further than that, look at how the same corp responsible for EEE-ing XMPP now has a monopoly in the web browser space and on a lot of web standards bodies, and look at what they've been pulling. Surveillance capitalism isn't compatible with the grassroots power that the fediverse represents for a lot of people. Not every actor is a good actor.
@finner There was a long-standing false trope about free software development that conflated the potential for anybody to contribute to the code with anybody can contribute to a codebase.
The licence permits redistribution, modification, and by extension, forking. The project administrator however exercises control over what goes into their branch of the project. As Linus Torvalds has often said, his main job (for a few decades now) has been to say "No". As in "no, that patch is not entering the kernel*.
This gets more complicated when a single large entity can control and direct both development and specification. The capacity to empty dumpsters full of cash on developers to do what you tell them to do ... is an effective mechanism for control over a project, and if you happen to own a money-minting machine (Google, Facebook, Amazon, Oracle, IBM), then you're going to have an outsized influence on development. Indeed we've seen Linux affected in this way to an extent, Chrome (and with it the HTML/CSS/JS specs) immensely by Google, and various communications protocols by numerous entities (chat, email, voice, social media, video).
In the case of ActivityPub and the Fediverse, I see two main concerns:
FB swamping the cultural dynamic and information flows. Even conservatively FB are at least 1,000x larger than the present Fediverse, and I suspect that's an underestimation.
FB hijacking aspects of the protocol and clients themselves. There are plenty of extant examples of this, and it might be possible even without malicious intent. Mastodon has (/me checks Github...) 830 contributors, and I'd suspect that a power-law distribution holds, with a small fraction of those dominating. FB have > 58k employees, and even if only 10% of that is engineering, that's approaching 10x Mastodon's development team. Keep in mind that non-engineer contributors can also provide useful roles (PMs, QA, etc., etc.)
The fact that both the comms protocol and the development licence are open in no way whatsover compels other Fediverse instances, or the Mastodon project itself, to accept traffic or code from FB. And the harms which might come from doing so, based on historical precedent, are huge.
The more I read on #Meta, #ActivityPub and #GDPR, I get the impression that the fundamental architecture of the #Fediverse is almost incompatible with GDPR. How is this discussed within the Fedi #admin circle?
EDIT: because people ask me, here are two insightful sources:
@jynersolives In case of ActivityPub/Mastodon that scope ends after the immediate processing is done. The scope is the delivery of messages. Your contract with Mastodon is for the delivery, not the continued storage and maintenance outside of your instance.
@jynersolives@Bloonface I suggest you talk with a data privacy lawyer. I'm not a lawyer but I work in online marketing and this stuff is literally my daily business. It is a clearly communicated part of the fundamental principles of federation that data is distributed on your behalf. It's the same with any chatprogram, email, etc. Tasking someone to distribute things for you carries no duty of continued care. You decide who the recipients of your data are. Once sent, there is no undo.
I don't like posting to other social media services nowadays, solely because of the character limit. I hate limiting my words. 600 characters should not be not too long thing to post on social media. #SocialMedia#Writing
@rolle I must say, in the past, the 140 character limit was one of the things that appealed to me about Twitter. It teaches you brevity, which really tightens and cleans up your writing, because you have to look for ways to say what you want in fewer words (and without text-speak and abbreviations; that's cheating). ;-)
But now I'm on Mastodon, and my instance supports 5000 characters per post, I really enjoy that too. It's freeing.
But as you can see, my writing is starting to become unnecessarily verbose again. Maybe I should override the character limit in Sengi to be 500 or so, to force myself to be brief again. :-D
I am very much questioning why Mastodon has not made this a configurable value for instance admins. What good does the char limit bring in the first place? Just to mimic Twitter?
@Linux_Is_Best@1dalm@CppGuy I feel the same way, Linux Is Best. Free speech does not, in fact, include purposefully spreading disinformation in attempts to erode the first amendment.
