This means that all content from communities which are hosted there is hidden. Posts from users of blocked instances are still visible in other places.
Cool! Although it’s not quite what I imagined. It’s widespread problematic posts and comments from users on instances I’d want to block in other communities I do follow which I was thinking of, and those wouldn’t be affected? I have not seen a whole lot of it so far, but I saw enough to think about it a little.
It might be more complicated, as I suppose you’d have to hide all the replies to comments from user-blocked instances as well. Maybe it could be done client-side? Seems like giving users that option would mean less motivation for defederating.
I’m all for every admin deciding what’s best to de-federate from their server, but I really dislike that people are trying to influence other servers through shaming them for not de federating from the same servers as them.
That’s the whole point of the fediverse so that I can decide myself who I want to engage with and who not, if every server has de federated from the same list of other servers what’s the point of the fediverse?
Differences in instance-level topical focus and moderation philosophy, for one. Also physical location and “vibe”.
There are a certain set of bigoted and/or extremist instances that I would judge an instance for not defederating from. There’s a reason I’ve stuck with .world even through some turbulence. Some heinous shit shouldn’t be tolerated by anyone.
This seems like an excellent use of federated services. Now their citizens have a single source for government updates that they know is valid and the government can ensure that everything follows whatever data laws they pass.
At least in Norway it was recently a huge scandal when tweets went private, as several public organs communicate through Twitter and suddenly over night this wasn't available to people.
I think there are a lot more countries than the Netherlands currently looking into this.
The Nordic Council of Ministers set up a Think Tank for digital strategy stuff last year, and they published their recommendations two months ago. They specifically advised all the Nordic governments to go all in on ActivityPub.
It would be amazing if the reason it is taking so long is that they are working on a tailor made activitypub service specifically for public information announcements. One can dream.
Not just data access or privacy, but also data retention laws for public officials. While one can hope no nation is afflicted with a leader like Donald Trump, a government-run Mastodon server wouldn't have problems like this.
It was the third time. Rutte I, III, and IV all fell, but Rutte II served its entire term (though there were still some interim changes in its composition due to a few resignations of individual ministers).
Mastodon also announced the five board members for the U.S. non-profit, of which two has led to some critical comments within the larger fediverse community: Twitter co-founder Biz Stone and legal advisor Amir Ghavi. Ghavi is involved in Blockchain and AI Technologies, technologies that the fediverse community is critical of, and Mastodon CEO Eugen Rochko himself is also has spoken out against. Both Ghavi and Stone are involved in the space of venture capital, which also has drawn criticism within the community, as they feel that it goes against the values of the fediverse.
A bit uneasy? This is beyond parody LMAO. Twitter co-founder? This is so incestuous. Open source projects are too often just a cargo cult built around corporate practices. Nothing surprising, but really validates the move to defederate with people who don’t block Threads etc.
> The ability to opt-out of quote posts is also currently planned, which makes it that Mastodon’s implementation will not be compatible with other fediverse implementations of quote posting.
Not surprising. Even before ActivityPub was announced, when the #fediverse was still powered by #OStatus, Mastodon was already breaking compatibility. There were countless of heated debates about almost every Mastodon-only "feature" they implemented that all other Fediverse devs were forced to implement.
And here we are with yet another.
I wonder what will supporters of opt-out or anti-quotepost camp will do if the other Fediverse devs ignore this Mastodon-only "feature", and just continue with the common implementation of quote posts? Are we going to see a new reason for "fediblock", and finally fragment the Fediverse network?
To add, #Fediverse devs should agree and make a stand not to implement any mainline Mastodon-only "feature" related to quote post.
If mainline Mastodon instances and users complain about it, they can just rely on "fediblock" and use this reason: "refused to implement Mastodon-only quote post feature". Sure it will fragment the Fediverse network, but why not? People and the media keeps calling it the "Mastodon network" anyway.
Users who prefer the Fediverse network over the mainline Mastodon network can migrate over to friendlier and sane instances. 😉
Not only are they federating with each other, but they implemented Group to Group following to help prevent duplicate posts. Its a feature that's been requested for lemmy/kbin/mbin, so it'll be interesting to see how well it works for them.
Thanks! And yeah, last few weeks have gotten wayy busier with news, its quite noticeable to me. I’m especially excited that there is lots of news outside of the microblogging sphere as well, that part is the most interesting part of the fediverse to me
(mentions to my indieweb account are still broken for some reason, no idea why haha)
As an example: If you have an account on kbin.social you can follow both !fediverse and !fediverse, but these communities stay separate. This often leads to duplicate posts, and splintered communities. What NodeBB and Discourse have done is equivalent to if !fediverse and !fediverse could follow each other, so a post in one of the communities would show up in the other community.
That’s a neat feature! I think community aggregation in this sort of way is a positive and it could be useful for lemmy as well.
I'm not sure. Similar communities at different instances can have very different rules and vibes. There's a reason people prefer talking politics on Beehaw versus Hexbear.
I like the Kbin solution so far. Leave communities separate but cross-link and deduplicate individual threads from multiple communities in your feed. The implementation at Kbin is still a bit flawed, but the idea is sound.
I think it’s useful if it’s a feature you can choose to activate or deactivate yourself on specific groups of communities, but it sounds awful if the decision is made for you.
The value is in the granular way that you can connect communities. You’re totally right that there are a lot of cases where there are good reasons not to connect communities. That goes across instance borders (like you said, Beehaw and Hexbear would preferably not connect communities), but even for instances that are similar, not all communities need to be connected. In the current example of the Social Hub forum and the NodeBB development forum, only 2 communities (categories) are connected, and the rest is not.
fediversereport.com
Hot