So while one key piece of the #Fediverse is that entire instances can be blocked as a form of moderation, and keeping things safe for people. I think it should be clearly stated to newcomers to any instance if entire platforms such as #Meta / #Tumblr / #Medium / #WordPress.com / #Bluesky (through a bridge) are being blocked.
If someone wants to have a federated identity and follow family/friends on Meta then they are SOL if an instance completely blocks the entire platform. #fediblock
It’s funny how everyone I see arguing for letting profit-driven data-collecting corporations join the Fediverse is a white dude who just stood up their own instance last year.
@anthracite so to be clear there is nothing technical standing in the way of any business from joining the #Fediverse. If you aren't aware of how the Fediverse and it's protocols work it is a completely open standard. Saying you don't want #Meta on the Fediverse is like saying you don't want them on the internet. It just doesn't work that way.
@anthracite I'm also not arguing for anything other than transparency for the general public. You may not want anything to do with Facebook but that doesn't mean others don't. Additionally, wouldn't you want your instance admins to be clear that they are blocking Facebook so you can have the peace of mind in knowing you don't have to deal with content coming from their services? #Meta#FediBlockMeta
@tim@anthracite I don't usually go out of my way to call out sometime on social media because I feel it's a waste of time and I have better things to do with my fleeting life and as I get older I'm more discerning with regards to how I want to spend the short time we all have on this ball of dirt we call Earth.
@tim Any bridges that are bi-directional and include posting of Mastodon content on these corporate platforms create an issue of consent. Mastodon users generally do not consent to having their content distributed to other services, and the other services claim a broad license to content presented on their platforms, including the right to data mine and monetize that content. Bridges do not have the legal right to convey this content. It is not their content to license.
@mastodonmigration uh, are you referring to my #Bluesky reference? And for that matter are you saying people are going to start suing someone because their posts are stored on a personal #WordPress site that supports #AcrivityPub ? I don't really see how consent really can work on a federated system built on ActivityPub. #Fediverse
@tim When you sign up for #Bluesky, #Twitter or #Meta you agree to give them a license to content you post. It is a very broad perpetual license giving them lots of rights to your content, including the right to sublicense. When you sign up for Mastodon, most instances do not take a license, the content rights you give them are defined in the privacy policy, and they do not include reposting your content to corporate sites that assume licenses to the content.
@tim Any bridge that takes content from Mastodon and without permission places that content on another platform is violating that user's copywrite to the content. You can not authorize a license to something which you do not own.
@tim Your question about whether someone will sue to enforce their copywrite is a good one. Certainly most individual users will generally not be in a position to enforce their rights. Does this mean it is OK to take their property? Is that the standard your are advocating?
@tim In fact, a hypothetical bridge that scoops up and posts content, which is does not own to a corporate platform, is likely in violation of the platform's terms of service wherein the poster guarantees that they have the right to the content they are posting.
Add comment