After about twelve hours, the same post had received more than 300 shares and likes on Mastodon, while it had only been shared three times and liked four times on BlueSky.
-
@Jirikiha @macacator @MyWoolyMastadon @oblomov @john @engel @everton137
yeah i don't want to imply mastodon is perfect at all
there's lots of areas for improvement, and for good ideas like yours, to take hold
why are you speaking of mastodon specifically?, I wonder. since it's all interconnected with various other Fediverse servers, any privacy guarantees necessarily depend on what other servers guarantee as well.
CC: @Jirikiha@raphus.social @macacator@mastodon.social @MyWoolyMastadon@toot.community @oblomov@sociale.network @john@vyrse.social @engel@mastodon.social @everton137@vivaldi.net
-
why are you speaking of mastodon specifically?, I wonder. since it's all interconnected with various other Fediverse servers, any privacy guarantees necessarily depend on what other servers guarantee as well.
CC: @Jirikiha@raphus.social @macacator@mastodon.social @MyWoolyMastadon@toot.community @oblomov@sociale.network @john@vyrse.social @engel@mastodon.social @everton137@vivaldi.net@lxo @Jirikiha @macacator @MyWoolyMastadon @oblomov @john @engel @everton137
zero argument
the solution to that as far as i see is a server pact that specifically excludes those servers running software that does not respect a baseline of privacy safeguards that we all agree are mandatory
i mean: truth social is mastodon software
we can't do anything about disrespectful servers except wall them off
we ideally look for technical solutions
but sometimes the only solution is a social choice
-
@lxo @Jirikiha @macacator @MyWoolyMastadon @oblomov @john @engel @everton137
zero argument
the solution to that as far as i see is a server pact that specifically excludes those servers running software that does not respect a baseline of privacy safeguards that we all agree are mandatory
i mean: truth social is mastodon software
we can't do anything about disrespectful servers except wall them off
we ideally look for technical solutions
but sometimes the only solution is a social choice
I'm not speaking of disrespectful or deviant servers, just pointing out that there may be diversity in the Fediverse, and it's offensive to me to make it all a mastodon-centered thing. I've been burned by mastodon's jerk moves before. Fediverse shouldn't bow to mastodon. mastodon doesn't make the rules. there's a standard that we all adhere to (except where mastodon doesn't)
CC: @Jirikiha@raphus.social @macacator@mastodon.social @MyWoolyMastadon@toot.community @oblomov@sociale.network @john@vyrse.social @engel@mastodon.social @everton137@vivaldi.net
-
I'm not speaking of disrespectful or deviant servers, just pointing out that there may be diversity in the Fediverse, and it's offensive to me to make it all a mastodon-centered thing. I've been burned by mastodon's jerk moves before. Fediverse shouldn't bow to mastodon. mastodon doesn't make the rules. there's a standard that we all adhere to (except where mastodon doesn't)
CC: @Jirikiha@raphus.social @macacator@mastodon.social @MyWoolyMastadon@toot.community @oblomov@sociale.network @john@vyrse.social @engel@mastodon.social @everton137@vivaldi.net@lxo @Jirikiha @macacator @MyWoolyMastadon @oblomov @john @engel @everton137
apologies but i really don't care if you dislike mastodon
mastodon is just mastodon, the good and the bad, i recognize both
the real topic here is a baseline of respect for privacy between servers
right?
could be running any software
the question of mastodon or not is immaterial to the essential topic here
-
@lxo @Jirikiha @macacator @MyWoolyMastadon @oblomov @john @engel @everton137
apologies but i really don't care if you dislike mastodon
mastodon is just mastodon, the good and the bad, i recognize both
the real topic here is a baseline of respect for privacy between servers
right?
could be running any software
the question of mastodon or not is immaterial to the essential topic here
it's not about mastodon, it's about the Fediverse. mastodon is just one of many servers that make it up.
when you speak of mastodon as if it was the Fediverse, you mislead people who might mistake them for the same thing.
when you speak of privacy features, you mislead people into believing only mastodon's features matter.
CC: @Jirikiha@raphus.social @macacator@mastodon.social @MyWoolyMastadon@toot.community @oblomov@sociale.network @john@vyrse.social @engel@mastodon.social @everton137@vivaldi.net
-
it's not about mastodon, it's about the Fediverse. mastodon is just one of many servers that make it up.
when you speak of mastodon as if it was the Fediverse, you mislead people who might mistake them for the same thing.
when you speak of privacy features, you mislead people into believing only mastodon's features matter.
CC: @Jirikiha@raphus.social @macacator@mastodon.social @MyWoolyMastadon@toot.community @oblomov@sociale.network @john@vyrse.social @engel@mastodon.social @everton137@vivaldi.net@lxo @Jirikiha @macacator @MyWoolyMastadon @oblomov @john @engel @everton137
that's fair
the fediverse is not mastodon
and i am using "mastodon" as shorthand for the fediverse
that is an error on my part
i accept your criticism, and i stand corrected
thank you
-
@lxo @Jirikiha @macacator @MyWoolyMastadon @oblomov @john @engel @everton137
apologies but i really don't care if you dislike mastodon
mastodon is just mastodon, the good and the bad, i recognize both
the real topic here is a baseline of respect for privacy between servers
right?
could be running any software
the question of mastodon or not is immaterial to the essential topic here
furthermore, we should stop conflating protocols and programs. that's been a disservice that has made exploitation easier even when back when people had choices but just didn't realize they existed. we should value and cherish the fact that there's an underlying protocol that many different programs can interoperate with. we don't want mastodon (or anyone) to be another microsoft, another google, any other entity that gains power over people by dictating under what terms they can communicate with others, and that can enshittify services to its own advantage whenever it sees fit. that's harder for mastodon to do because it's free software, but the centralization of power that mislabeling it all as mastodon sets things up for such bad outcomes. please don't do that.
CC: @Jirikiha@raphus.social @macacator@mastodon.social @MyWoolyMastadon@toot.community @oblomov@sociale.network @john@vyrse.social @engel@mastodon.social @everton137@vivaldi.net
-
@lxo @Jirikiha @macacator @MyWoolyMastadon @oblomov @john @engel @everton137
that's fair
the fediverse is not mastodon
and i am using "mastodon" as shorthand for the fediverse
that is an error on my part
i accept your criticism, and i stand corrected
thank you
that's a weird kind of shorthand, that isn't actually shorter
not that I haven't seen such things before. some people claim Linux is a shorthand for GNU
CC: @Jirikiha@raphus.social @macacator@mastodon.social @MyWoolyMastadon@toot.community @oblomov@sociale.network @john@vyrse.social @engel@mastodon.social @everton137@vivaldi.net
-
furthermore, we should stop conflating protocols and programs. that's been a disservice that has made exploitation easier even when back when people had choices but just didn't realize they existed. we should value and cherish the fact that there's an underlying protocol that many different programs can interoperate with. we don't want mastodon (or anyone) to be another microsoft, another google, any other entity that gains power over people by dictating under what terms they can communicate with others, and that can enshittify services to its own advantage whenever it sees fit. that's harder for mastodon to do because it's free software, but the centralization of power that mislabeling it all as mastodon sets things up for such bad outcomes. please don't do that.
CC: @Jirikiha@raphus.social @macacator@mastodon.social @MyWoolyMastadon@toot.community @oblomov@sociale.network @john@vyrse.social @engel@mastodon.social @everton137@vivaldi.net@lxo @Jirikiha @macacator @MyWoolyMastadon @oblomov @john @engel @everton137
the discussion is about respecting a baseline of privacy, and i made the error of conflating the fediverse with mastodon, and i admit it
but what you're talking about now about monopolies is bullshit
even if it was a software/ protocol monoculture, server A does not control server B, and vice versa
and you are wrong: you DO want to impose standards
not from a centralized authority, but via servers cooperating
-
that's a weird kind of shorthand, that isn't actually shorter
not that I haven't seen such things before. some people claim Linux is a shorthand for GNU
CC: @Jirikiha@raphus.social @macacator@mastodon.social @MyWoolyMastadon@toot.community @oblomov@sociale.network @john@vyrse.social @engel@mastodon.social @everton137@vivaldi.net@lxo @Jirikiha @macacator @MyWoolyMastadon @oblomov @john @engel @everton137
no you completely got me. my "shorthand" is a straight error, i admit it. mea culpa. and thank you for the correction. sincerely
-
@lxo @Jirikiha @macacator @MyWoolyMastadon @oblomov @john @engel @everton137
the discussion is about respecting a baseline of privacy, and i made the error of conflating the fediverse with mastodon, and i admit it
but what you're talking about now about monopolies is bullshit
even if it was a software/ protocol monoculture, server A does not control server B, and vice versa
and you are wrong: you DO want to impose standards
not from a centralized authority, but via servers cooperating
the problem of this sort of monoculture is not about one server controlling another, but of the software provider that dominates the network to have control over servers and users
when mastodon unilaterally broke compatibility with the protocol with which the Fediverse was born, to cut GNU social off before it caught up with ActivityPub, mastodon servers that upgraded stopped being able to talk to GNU social survivors
GNU social users had already endured the transition of identi.ca, then the central node of the Fediverse, from the Status.Net protocol to pump.io.
both moves created very significant disruption in the Fediverse, and broke connections between servers and, more importantly, between people.
both of them followed from centralization of power, in one case around a server instance, in another case around server software. both have been traumatic, but also value lessons to learn about things to avoid in a decent(ralized) network.
but I wouldn't say that I wish to impose standards. I'd be happy with voluntary adhesion. I welcome diversity, including the bridges and the other incompatible protocols that make up the broad Fediverse. but I disapprove of jerk, anti-competitive and anti-interoperation moves that sabotaged and cut off significant chunks of the Fediverse. may that be a lesson that we learn, remember, and don't forget, so that it doesn't happen again.
CC: @Jirikiha@raphus.social @macacator@mastodon.social @MyWoolyMastadon@toot.community @oblomov@sociale.network @john@vyrse.social @engel@mastodon.social @everton137@vivaldi.net
-
the problem of this sort of monoculture is not about one server controlling another, but of the software provider that dominates the network to have control over servers and users
when mastodon unilaterally broke compatibility with the protocol with which the Fediverse was born, to cut GNU social off before it caught up with ActivityPub, mastodon servers that upgraded stopped being able to talk to GNU social survivors
GNU social users had already endured the transition of identi.ca, then the central node of the Fediverse, from the Status.Net protocol to pump.io.
both moves created very significant disruption in the Fediverse, and broke connections between servers and, more importantly, between people.
both of them followed from centralization of power, in one case around a server instance, in another case around server software. both have been traumatic, but also value lessons to learn about things to avoid in a decent(ralized) network.
but I wouldn't say that I wish to impose standards. I'd be happy with voluntary adhesion. I welcome diversity, including the bridges and the other incompatible protocols that make up the broad Fediverse. but I disapprove of jerk, anti-competitive and anti-interoperation moves that sabotaged and cut off significant chunks of the Fediverse. may that be a lesson that we learn, remember, and don't forget, so that it doesn't happen again.
CC: @Jirikiha@raphus.social @macacator@mastodon.social @MyWoolyMastadon@toot.community @oblomov@sociale.network @john@vyrse.social @engel@mastodon.social @everton137@vivaldi.net@lxo @Jirikiha @macacator @MyWoolyMastadon @oblomov @john @engel @everton137
"but of the software provider that dominates the network to have control over servers and users"
why does mastodon.social have to write it. it's open source. anyone can. someone should have
"but I wouldn't say that I wish to impose standards"
you are though: complete compatibility is your demand
"I welcome diversity"
i don't if it means truth social
i welcome collaboration. there's no centralization in that
-
@lxo @Jirikiha @macacator @MyWoolyMastadon @oblomov @john @engel @everton137
"but of the software provider that dominates the network to have control over servers and users"
why does mastodon.social have to write it. it's open source. anyone can. someone should have
"but I wouldn't say that I wish to impose standards"
you are though: complete compatibility is your demand
"I welcome diversity"
i don't if it means truth social
i welcome collaboration. there's no centralization in that
I'll respond to your post from bottom to top
why the heck are you worrying about truth.social, that actually runs mastodon code but that was intentionally configured to not be interoperable and non-diverse, when you're talking to someone who uses a non-mastodon instance that actually increases server software diversity in the Fediverse?
I ask for interoperability as opposed to jerky rug-pulling. complete compatibility is not generally attainable even across different versions of the same program, and if you think I'm demanding that, we've miscommunicated.
what's with mastodon.social? I'm talking about the mastodon server software, not about the mastodon.social instance. that their server software gets installed by operators all over the Fediverse without much thought gives those who write the software a lot of power, arguably too much power. that they also control the largest instance, that you happened to mention by name, gives them further power, but not even close to as much as the fact that others just take their updates, even when they pull the rug from under large chunks of the Fediverse. that concentration of power, and their time-and-again shown limited regard for interoperability, are not healthy for the Fediverse.
now, I don't get what you meant by "have to write it". what's the "it" that mastodon.social has to write?!?
CC: @Jirikiha@raphus.social @macacator@mastodon.social @MyWoolyMastadon@toot.community @oblomov@sociale.network @john@vyrse.social @engel@mastodon.social @everton137@vivaldi.net
-
I'll respond to your post from bottom to top
why the heck are you worrying about truth.social, that actually runs mastodon code but that was intentionally configured to not be interoperable and non-diverse, when you're talking to someone who uses a non-mastodon instance that actually increases server software diversity in the Fediverse?
I ask for interoperability as opposed to jerky rug-pulling. complete compatibility is not generally attainable even across different versions of the same program, and if you think I'm demanding that, we've miscommunicated.
what's with mastodon.social? I'm talking about the mastodon server software, not about the mastodon.social instance. that their server software gets installed by operators all over the Fediverse without much thought gives those who write the software a lot of power, arguably too much power. that they also control the largest instance, that you happened to mention by name, gives them further power, but not even close to as much as the fact that others just take their updates, even when they pull the rug from under large chunks of the Fediverse. that concentration of power, and their time-and-again shown limited regard for interoperability, are not healthy for the Fediverse.
now, I don't get what you meant by "have to write it". what's the "it" that mastodon.social has to write?!?
CC: @Jirikiha@raphus.social @macacator@mastodon.social @MyWoolyMastadon@toot.community @oblomov@sociale.network @john@vyrse.social @engel@mastodon.social @everton137@vivaldi.net@lxo @Jirikiha @macacator @MyWoolyMastadon @oblomov @john @engel @everton137
i say truth social not meaning literally truth social. i mean any maliciously inclined server, like "freeze peach" bigot ones
interoperability is the responsibility of parties interested in that. since it's open source, someone should write that. if mastodon software doesn't have something you demand, then write it. depending upon mastodon is your error, it is not mastodon's error for not satisfying your demand
-
@lxo @Jirikiha @macacator @MyWoolyMastadon @oblomov @john @engel @everton137
"but of the software provider that dominates the network to have control over servers and users"
why does mastodon.social have to write it. it's open source. anyone can. someone should have
"but I wouldn't say that I wish to impose standards"
you are though: complete compatibility is your demand
"I welcome diversity"
i don't if it means truth social
i welcome collaboration. there's no centralization in that
hmm, maybe the "it" was compatibility with GNU social?
that compatibility was in Mastodon from day one. it was there before ActivityPub came to exist.
but Mastodon decided to drop it, to break compatibility with other instances with diverse servers that still used the original Fediverse protocol
that's not collaboration. that's sabotage. and it was only possible because of the very centralization of power I'm speaking of.
-
@lxo @Jirikiha @macacator @MyWoolyMastadon @oblomov @john @engel @everton137
i say truth social not meaning literally truth social. i mean any maliciously inclined server, like "freeze peach" bigot ones
interoperability is the responsibility of parties interested in that. since it's open source, someone should write that. if mastodon software doesn't have something you demand, then write it. depending upon mastodon is your error, it is not mastodon's error for not satisfying your demand
and if it removes something that interoperability depends on?
and if it introduces incompatible features that break interoperability?
if they decide they don't wish to collaborate or cooperate, like they have in the past, is it my fault that they decided to make jerk moves?
why should I even bother to send merge requests that revert the removals or the incompatible features, if they've already made it clear they don't want them?
CC: @Jirikiha@raphus.social @macacator@mastodon.social @MyWoolyMastadon@toot.community @oblomov@sociale.network @john@vyrse.social @engel@mastodon.social @everton137@vivaldi.net
-
hmm, maybe the "it" was compatibility with GNU social?
that compatibility was in Mastodon from day one. it was there before ActivityPub came to exist.
but Mastodon decided to drop it, to break compatibility with other instances with diverse servers that still used the original Fediverse protocol
that's not collaboration. that's sabotage. and it was only possible because of the very centralization of power I'm speaking of.it was dropped for any number of reasons. malice, incompetence, just not caring. and you want it. so you write it. and then it gets adopted
the double edge sword of open source is you can do whatever you want. but also there is no centralized hierarchy that is responsive to your demands
you do not pay mastodon. so they have no obligation to meet your demands
you're thinking in terms of business relationships. but there is none here. they can't disappoint you because they don't owe you
-
and if it removes something that interoperability depends on?
and if it introduces incompatible features that break interoperability?
if they decide they don't wish to collaborate or cooperate, like they have in the past, is it my fault that they decided to make jerk moves?
why should I even bother to send merge requests that revert the removals or the incompatible features, if they've already made it clear they don't want them?
CC: @Jirikiha@raphus.social @macacator@mastodon.social @MyWoolyMastadon@toot.community @oblomov@sociale.network @john@vyrse.social @engel@mastodon.social @everton137@vivaldi.net@lxo @Jirikiha @macacator @MyWoolyMastadon @oblomov @john @engel @everton137
So fork it
If the demand exists for the capability, your fork will be the new standard
Regardless, even if it doesn't become the new standard, anyone who wants what you also want can use your fork
You can't be disappointed because you're assuming a relationship that does not exist
Of course you *can* be "disappointed" but it carries no weight
-
@lxo @Jirikiha @macacator @MyWoolyMastadon @oblomov @john @engel @everton137
So fork it
If the demand exists for the capability, your fork will be the new standard
Regardless, even if it doesn't become the new standard, anyone who wants what you also want can use your fork
You can't be disappointed because you're assuming a relationship that does not exist
Of course you *can* be "disappointed" but it carries no weight
that's like saying we should fork threads or instagram or facebook. it wouldn't solve the interoperability problem that arises from intentional incompatibility from someone who has too much power and is willing to abuse it.
forking might give some choice to some instance operators, but it won't help the users who end up hurt in the cross fire of the jerk move, whether because they use an instance whose operator goes along with the jerk moves, or because they wanted to communicate with someone who does.
we have some safeguards because the software is free, and also because users can move.
but interoperability is not something that should be taken as lightly as mastodon has, and that it has because it could, because it was already big to care, big enough to start behaving like microsoft who figured they could reject ODF and force OOXML even while not being compatible with it; like google and facebook who interoperated through XMPP and then broke compatibility to make walled gardens.
if mastodon decides it wants to change the way users can move between instances, it could make it so that users could no longer move to instances that don't implement those changes, locking users in if/until other servers implemented compatible incompatibilities. that's the microsoft way, and it follows from having too much power. that power should be kept in check, not encouraged or defended.
CC: @Jirikiha@raphus.social @macacator@mastodon.social @MyWoolyMastadon@toot.community @oblomov@sociale.network @john@vyrse.social @engel@mastodon.social @everton137@vivaldi.net
-
that's like saying we should fork threads or instagram or facebook. it wouldn't solve the interoperability problem that arises from intentional incompatibility from someone who has too much power and is willing to abuse it.
forking might give some choice to some instance operators, but it won't help the users who end up hurt in the cross fire of the jerk move, whether because they use an instance whose operator goes along with the jerk moves, or because they wanted to communicate with someone who does.
we have some safeguards because the software is free, and also because users can move.
but interoperability is not something that should be taken as lightly as mastodon has, and that it has because it could, because it was already big to care, big enough to start behaving like microsoft who figured they could reject ODF and force OOXML even while not being compatible with it; like google and facebook who interoperated through XMPP and then broke compatibility to make walled gardens.
if mastodon decides it wants to change the way users can move between instances, it could make it so that users could no longer move to instances that don't implement those changes, locking users in if/until other servers implemented compatible incompatibilities. that's the microsoft way, and it follows from having too much power. that power should be kept in check, not encouraged or defended.
CC: @Jirikiha@raphus.social @macacator@mastodon.social @MyWoolyMastadon@toot.community @oblomov@sociale.network @john@vyrse.social @engel@mastodon.social @everton137@vivaldi.net@lxo @Jirikiha @macacator @MyWoolyMastadon @oblomov @john @engel @everton137
i won't, and can't, argue with you about the history of a topic i know nothing about
but i do know that mastodon has plenty of interop with other software projects. do those other projects have the interop you desire? if yes, then mastodon sucks. if no, maybe there's a technical reason
did these older projects you allude to keep up to date with reasonable standards?
