Post AkXec71pjFiLw79ujI by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
(DIR) More posts by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
(DIR) Post #AkRHgsyrvEOZvCJtDs by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2024-07-30T00:14:35Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
Cue another round of 'Meta is bad, therefore fediverse admins shouldn't allow anyone on their servers to talk to anyone on Meta's server'. As usual, all the wailing and gnashing of teeth;https://cyberpunk.lol/@FediPact/112871261753041389... totally misses the point. Nobody here is defending Meta. Literally *nobody*.I'm for federation with Meta's server because it helps people leave it. Simple as that.(1/2)#fediverse #Meta #AntiMetaFediPact
(DIR) Post #AkRHh4AyIZc2dv4D7A by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2024-07-30T00:14:37Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
If you're a fediverse admin, you can give Alice the freedom to move permanently to your server, while still being able to talk to her friends on Meta's server. Including about making the jump themselves.If you're blocking that server, then even if Alice sets up a non-Meta account, she still needs to keep logging into Meta's server. To have those conversations.Shame on you if you help Meta keep people trapped on their server. Don't you know Meta is bad?(2/2)
(DIR) Post #AkRLnSWb5CMDiIUBWa by matt5sean3@urusai.social
2024-07-30T01:00:41Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@strypey Having somebody tied to a major US conservative group have a major say on the moderation decisions of the biggest Fediverse instance that you federate to by an order of magnitude just on paper seems like a more than fair reason to pre-emptively defederate.The current moderation tools already don't regulate against the scale of mastodon.social all that well. From the standpoint of "I don't want to even try to moderate against that," it's absolutely fair.
(DIR) Post #AkRrqJBFTieU8Ou276 by aral@mastodon.ar.al
2024-07-30T06:59:43Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@strypey Does it though? Is everyone at Meta stupid? Did Zuckerberg wake up one morning and say “hey, you know what, let me do something that makes it easier for people to leave Meta, that’ll be fun!?”Or are they doing this for the same reason they do everything else: to grow, to exploit more people, and make more money while cementing their monopolistic position further?They hired a fascist to head their public policy. If that doesn’t make you defederate, what will?
(DIR) Post #AkS3avSuZENfgob0Mq by raphael@mastodon.communick.com
2024-07-30T09:10:55Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@aral @strypey One could argue that Zuck at this point cares more about turning Meta into an infrastructure company that can serve and profit from other social networks than being itself a monopolistic network.Anyway it doesn't matter what Zuckerberg "wants" but what we can do to practically fight for the people that are still under their control.I'd rather federate and keep having a door out than this totalitarian "with us or against us" attitude that helps no one but your own ego.
(DIR) Post #AkSXr9wnUL9zrZEQ2y by fromjason@mastodon.social
2024-07-30T14:50:30Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@strypey "I'm for federation with Meta's server because it helps people leave it.Simple as that."There is no evidence- nothing that Meta has implemented, no actions by Threads users, nothing- that suggests Meta's flavor of federation will help people will leave its platform. Which makes sense. Meta is a corporation with a board and shareholders. Why would it help users leave?To suggest otherwise is intellectually dishonest at best.
(DIR) Post #AkXXPb5VxTJJihxwxs by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2024-08-02T00:39:07Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
Putting aside all the extraneous 'Meta is bad' (as I said, I know)...@matt5sean3> From the standpoint of "I don't want to even try to moderate against that," it's absolutely fairAs an argument for mirroring what Meta's done, and making contact with people on their server opt-in at the account level, sure. As an argument to completely block all contact with anyone on that server? No, it's not.
(DIR) Post #AkXa1vs3KtzP5c4or2 by matt5sean3@urusai.social
2024-08-02T01:08:30Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@strypey Would you, as a moderator, then just going to ignore the reports about accounts from Threads from people who opted-in to federation with Threads?If no, we're right back to where we started with a moderation nightmare.If yes, we're almost guaranteed to be giving such a drastically worse moderation situation than actually being on Threads that your expectation of people on Threads joining the Fediverse proper will run in reverse as people with little to moderate commitment to decentralized models just move to Threads.
(DIR) Post #AkXbEkw1PIZotIbzay by fromjason@mastodon.social
2024-07-30T14:54:01Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@raphael @aral @strypey oh hey argued that back in December!Question— if Meta is working to be the defacto infrastructure for social media platforms, how is that good for the fediverse again? And what are we doing to "fight" meta to "save" its users other than defending Meta's actions?https://fromjason.xyz/p/notebook/copy-acquire-kill-how-meta-could-pull-off-the-most-extraordinary-pivot-in-tech-history/
(DIR) Post #AkXbElgobK0VEQVMX2 by raphael@mastodon.communick.com
2024-07-30T16:31:53Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@fromjason @aral @strypey You have a non-sequitur. One can see their actions for what they are and distrust them, while preferring to fight them in an open arena instead of letting them continue on their old ways. https://communick.news/comment/1385903
(DIR) Post #AkXbEmDmckNWsfvgv2 by fromjason@mastodon.social
2024-07-30T17:18:48Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@raphael @aral @strypey "Meta taking over the infrastructure via regulator capture is a good thing actually" is weirdo shit. Six months ago all the Meta bootlickers were saying this pivot was fantasy. That we shouldn't worry about it. Now you all are saying it's a good thing while pretending to "fight" Meta. Dangerous. Weirdo shit.
(DIR) Post #AkXbEmty5u7ezVfNfk by raphael@mastodon.communick.com
2024-07-30T17:31:24Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@fromjason @aral @strypey "Weirdo shit" is twisting an argument to conform to your predefined POV. No one is arguing for "letting them take over through regulatory capture". What a stupid, senseless take.
(DIR) Post #AkXbEncHR9ZHCwOlk0 by fromjason@mastodon.social
2024-07-30T17:36:51Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@raphael @aral @strypey see you in another six months when most of Mastodon is on Meta infrastructure and you find a new way to say it's a good thing. ✌️
(DIR) Post #AkXbEoUACofZu3bnjE by raphael@mastodon.communick.com
2024-07-30T17:53:45Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@fromjason @aral @strypey If you want to have an honest discussion and see what I really think about it: https://raphael.lullis.net/a-plan-for-social-media-less-fedi-more-webby/
(DIR) Post #AkXbEoXM0xDo3x6LhY by raphael@mastodon.communick.com
2024-07-30T17:44:32Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@fromjason @aral @strypey If people were not "listening to you" six months ago is because you conflate a bunch of separate things:1. Facebook wants to use Threads as a way to pivot into infrastructure.2. Facebook will likely use its power and dominance to build the standard in a way that favors them.3. Federation with threads means supporting them.(3) does not follow from (1) and (2), no matter how much I agree with you on the first two.
(DIR) Post #AkXbEpLL17CiYyUGbw by fromjason@mastodon.social
2024-07-30T20:26:26Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@raphael @aral @strypey Interesting how the pro-meta infrastructure discourse is rising at the same time laws that would make it virtually impossible to run independent servers are being passed. Dude I can't tell if you're a shill or a parrot but, I do not want to do anything approaching legitimizing your lame take https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2024/07/kosa-internet-censorship-bill-just-passed-senate-its-our-last-chance-stop-it
(DIR) Post #AkXbEq3eMMeKmPDegC by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2024-08-02T01:21:59Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@fromjason> I can't tell if you're a shill or a parrotI'm sure Meta can spare staff time to set up accounts and argue viciously on both sides of the divide. I wouldn't rule out the possibility that part of their motivation for AP federation was divide-and-rule. It wouldn't have been hard to predict it being as divisive as it has been.So how about we cool it with the sneering personal attacks and stick to the point? (1/2)@raphael @aral
(DIR) Post #AkXbExhFxVUSTGnssy by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2024-08-02T01:21:59Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@fromjason> the pro-meta infrastructure discourse is rising at the same time laws that would make it virtually impossible to run independent servers are being passedMost "independent" servers are on AWS. If Meta is reduced to being a competitor with scAmazon (and BorgSoft's Azure), that's a big win for us. They no longer have monopoly control over the social graph of most people online.Then we move the main battlefront to decentralising hosting, getting it off all corporate clouds.(2/2)
(DIR) Post #AkXbmJhn9UgiHmxVpY by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2024-08-02T01:28:08Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
If Meta is reduced to being a competitor with scAmazon (and BorgSoft's Azure), they no longer have monopoly control over the social graph of most people online. Of course that's a big win for us!Then we move the main battlefront to decentralising hosting, getting as much as possible off all corporate clouds.(3/3)
(DIR) Post #AkXbzrL9PTgsMopIA4 by fromjason@mastodon.social
2024-08-02T01:30:33Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@strypey > If Meta is reduced to being a competitor with scAmazon (and BorgSoft's Azure), they no longer have monopoly control over the social graph of most people online. Of course that's a big win for us!Again, really hard to take this argument seriously. This makes absolutely zero sense.
(DIR) Post #AkXeK5SQpah7qr0MyG by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2024-08-02T01:56:32Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@aral> Is everyone at Meta stupidNo. Their strategists are self-interested, ruthless, even sociopathic. But not stupid.So you'd think they would have anticipated and planned for something like the Anti-Fedi Meta Block? Maybe it's exactly what they were hoping for?Defaulting to knee-jerk reactions, and slamming anyone who questions them as an idiot or a shill, is not an effective way to find the best strategy for dealing with challenges like this.(1/?)
(DIR) Post #AkXeOmSqsIwCOQRJWi by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2024-08-02T01:56:33Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
How do the organisations currently represented by this body respond? Some say that CCP are despots, human rights abusers, unwelcome among them. Fair. Others point out that because of the size and institutional power of CCP, they'll always get more votes in the elections, and dominate discussions in the elected body. Definitely a risk.But others point out that this could be a significant step towards multi-party government and, more important, democratic rights for Chinese citizens.(3/?)
(DIR) Post #AkXeS2lyhGGHqEwRNo by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2024-08-02T01:56:33Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
Here's a thought experiment that might shed some light on the issues here.Imagine the CCP-controlled government of China quietly allowed other political organisations to hold elections for an advisory body. So many organisations started contesting these elections that it started to involve a noticable chunk of the Chinese population.Then the CCP announces they too will start contesting these elections, giving this advisory body formal status as a representative assembly.(2/?)
(DIR) Post #AkXec71pjFiLw79ujI by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2024-08-02T01:59:53Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
So what's more important? Protecting the moral purity of people in these organisations by avoiding association with the CCP? Protecting the representativeness of the advisory body in its existing, marginalised form? Or pushing towards the possibility of democratic rights for all the people of China?What would you advise them to do?(4/4)
(DIR) Post #AkYDf8EbCNLqwOIyvI by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2024-08-02T08:32:37Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@fromjason > nothing that Meta has implemented, no actions by Threads users, nothing- that suggests Meta's flavor of federation will help people will leave its platformThe (1/?) at the bottom of the message indicates that there is more. The second post anticipated your objection. See also: https://mastodon.nzoss.nz/@strypey/112878514717950168
(DIR) Post #Akbm5GRjGmgfr0xW76 by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2024-08-04T01:42:23Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@matt5sean3> Would you, as a moderator, then just ignore the reportsThat would depend entirely on the consensus of the people using the instance(s) I'm moderating. There's a wide range of nuanced options between closed door and open door policies. I can expand on this if you like.(1/2)
(DIR) Post #Akbm5HLNvrCsdczxrc by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2024-08-04T01:42:23Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
> If no, we're right back to where we started with a moderation nightmareFirst, there's a big difference between the load involved in;a) moderating unsolicited @mentions from Server Y to any account on your server, and posts from Y in your federated timelineb) moderating unsolicited @mentions from Y only to a subset of accounts on your server that have used the opt-in to open communicating with YSecondly, the opt-in could allow @mentions notifications only from followed accounts.(2/2)
(DIR) Post #AkboaZcIFDWMCAxPv6 by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2024-08-04T02:10:31Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@fromjason> This makes absolutely zero senseMaybe if you repeat back what you think I'm saying in your own words, it might be easier to figure out which bits I need to clarify or exapand on.
(DIR) Post #AkbrLKrb77NBxSXd7Q by matt5sean3@urusai.social
2024-08-04T02:41:19Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@strypey In terms of handling spam waves and dealing with bad actors, I would actually expect that the difference is much smaller than you might think. Under current tooling the amount of action required scales more closely to number of bad actors interacted with than to number of users. It does not require a large number of users that can be targeted. While at the same time it's not uncommon for the same bad actors to go after multiple users on a single instance.Of course in practical terms we're already deep in the land of hypotheticals for people without the technical background to patch the capabilities you're talking about into their Mastodon instance. Unless I'm really missing something in the docs these simply are not software features that Mastodon has.
(DIR) Post #Ake60lfM9eDQdFO0B6 by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2024-08-05T04:35:06Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@matt5sean3 > Unless I'm really missing something in the docs these simply are not software features that Mastodon has"Limiting (also known as Silencing) does not cut off connections, and allows follows to carry on, but it hides all posts from that server unless people are following the account that makes them."https://fedi.tips/how-to-defederate-fediblock-a-server-on-mastodon/
(DIR) Post #Ake86gtizmqhUP3iO8 by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2024-08-05T04:58:34Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@jens> concerns about actual harm to actual people Me (a week ago)> Nobody here is defending Meta. Literally *nobody* https://mastodon.nzoss.nz/@strypey/112889940728902326> You want to weigh that harm against a potential systemic benefit in the futureI want to mitigate that harm *now*, by preserving people's ability to leave the Meta server without losing their connections to people who haven't made the move yet.(1/?)
(DIR) Post #Ake86mlnAC4JhXOSrA by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2024-08-05T04:58:35Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
It's worth noting there's a word for groups of zealots who demand people cut off contact with friends and family, to prove their devotion to the cause. It's not a complimentary word.In fact, it's the very opposite of what the fediverse represents. See;https://mastodon.nzoss.nz/@strypey/112878514717950168(2/?)
(DIR) Post #Ake86uBDc3ZCgQLMxc by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2024-08-05T04:58:35Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@jens> XMPP interop didn't help people leave Facebook and GoogleFB never turned on federation with the Jabber network. But before Goggle turned theirs off, a number of us were able to use existing Jabber accounts to talk to people on GChat, instead of having to set up accounts there. Just as we still do with independent email accounts and GMail.Do you think independent email services blocking GMail would hurt Goggle's ability to dominate email, or help it?(3/?)
(DIR) Post #Ake872PL1RcACX0l4y by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2024-08-05T04:58:35Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@jens> a fig leaf to show regulatorsAh yes, the elephant in the room that makes this case completely different to the XMPP/ GChat situation. The DMA and similar laws are in the process of forcing all the big social silos to interop, and they face prosecution if they turn it off.> adversarial interoperability on our term... is precisely the strategic approach those of us opposed to knee-jerk blocks are arguing for. See;https://mastodon.nzoss.nz/@strypey/112907551135005027(4/4)
(DIR) Post #Ake9qWIKqje3sazGMK by matt5sean3@urusai.social
2024-08-05T05:18:04Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@strypey That differs in many respects from what you were proposing, but sure.If you push that server runners should permit federation with Threads with Threads set to Limit as that feature is presently designed, that's getting closer into the range of not necessarily having a moderation nightmare.That still leaves people exposed to problems of follow-spam, which is absolutely a nuisance, but it should at least keep less dedicated racists, transphobes, and reply-guys out of visibility from your instance's side.It's not perfect, because there will be folks who don't want their posts rolled into Meta's AI model and Limit still permits that, but given instructions for domain blocking Threads are posted prominently, that could be "okay."It's still not a move to be made quietly.
(DIR) Post #AkjyzMm7gAdMPjhAhM by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2024-08-08T00:44:11Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@matt5sean3> That still leaves people exposed to problems of follow-spam"On Mastodon, you can use a follow request system to restrict who can follow you. When it’s switched on, no one can follow you unless you manually approve their request."https://fedi.tips/restricting-who-can-follow-you-in-mastodon/
(DIR) Post #AkjzXlOodMNid8CB0K by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2024-08-08T00:50:54Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
(1/2)@matt5sean3> That still leaves people exposed to problems of follow-spam"On Mastodon, you can use a follow request system to restrict who can follow you. When it’s switched on, no one can follow you unless you manually approve their request."https://fedi.tips/restricting-who-can-follow-you-in-mastodon/
(DIR) Post #AkjzXm3ED6hweT6Rzk by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2024-08-08T00:50:55Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
(2/2)@matt5sean3> there will be folks who don't want their posts rolled into Meta's AI model and Limit still permits thatThis is a valid concern, but a red herring in the context of discussions about federation.If you're publishing posts on the web (Public or Unlisted), or posting Followers-only without requiring approval to follow, I guarantee you that Meta is ingesting your posts. With or without federation. Just as they are with published works on news sites, blogs etc.
(DIR) Post #Akk0Sc7fnQA8MkHlB2 by matt5sean3@urusai.social
2024-08-08T01:01:09Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@strypey You misunderstand what I mean by "follow spam." It's a tactic that should be familiar from other social media in which a bot follows you to get you to look at their account description usually containing some variety of advertisement, often for an OnlyFans or sometimes an MLM.Request approval is perhaps actually worse against this tactic as a person can just leave a new follow be but usually won't blindly accept or reject a request.
(DIR) Post #Akk13xGw7s6YfrQLWC by matt5sean3@urusai.social
2024-08-08T01:07:54Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@strypey I don't wish to really get into this discussion again, but "that doesn't mean we need to make it easy."Other social media platforms have managed to stymy data harvesting operations and there are certain configurations that do make such harvesting much more difficult by making it impossible to view posts anonymously on an instance. This is especially the case for follower-only posts and somewhat the case for unlisted posts.
(DIR) Post #Akm0N16WOKiKQHzv96 by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2024-08-09T00:09:27Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
(1/?) @matt5sean3> I don't wish to really get into this discussion againGood, because like I said, it's irrelevant to the topic under discussion (pros and cons of federating with DataFarmers), and here's why;> but "that doesn't mean we need to make it easy.This is King Canute logic. There is no spoon Your Majesty! It *is* easy. No amount of making life harder for fedizens who want to talk to each other (including those on Chains) will make it any harder.
(DIR) Post #Akm0N5cZb6jGQr1Zey by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2024-08-09T00:09:27Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
(2/?)@matt5sean3> social media platforms have managed to stymy data harvestingYes. *Centralised* ones, which can and do insist people use only their proprietary apps to view them. Fediverse servers can't mimic this, without withdrawing from all federation, and using proprietary apps with a obfuscated client API. Ie leaving the fediverse.> making it impossible to view posts anonymously on an instanceThese are, by definition, *not* public posts. So irrelevant even to this side discussion.
(DIR) Post #Akm42Tokq9G3DB9MwK by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2024-08-09T00:50:35Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
(1/?)@matt5sean3> You misunderstand what I mean by "follow spam."...Request approval is perhaps actually worse against this tactic as a person can just leave a new follow be but usually won't blindly accept or reject a request.Indeed, my apologies. How can this spam vector be addressed, not in isolation, but in a long term strategic vision? Say we continue to lobby for robust privacy and anti-monopoly regulation, federate with legacy platforms, and build fire exits out of their DataFarms.
(DIR) Post #Akm42YJO8C8f9LVtFA by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2024-08-09T00:50:35Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
(2/?)In the short term, this is where threat modelling comes in. Each person needs to consider what they're most concerned about. Ingestion of their posts by Meta, or follow-spam from Chains? I have been blogging and commenting on forums on the open web for more than a quarter century. Which means DataFarmers already have oodles of my words etc, so follow-spam is a much bigger concern for me. For others, who want to use the verse for more sensitive conversations, it will be different.
(DIR) Post #Akm42aLEaIntReOOOm by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2024-08-09T00:50:35Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
(3/?)In the medium term, fediverse software can be improved. With clear descriptions of the problems to be solved (eg granular access to posts, E2EE DM) and proposals for solutions in places like Fediverse Ideas or SocialHub. Followed by turning the best solutions into FEPs, and getting them implemented across the verse.In the long term, a combination of regulatory pressure, and exodus via federation, will redistribute the power monopolised by DataFarmers, back to people and our communities.
(DIR) Post #Akm42bwqbwU8QazwfI by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2024-08-09T00:50:36Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
(4/4)It's the digital equivalent of accepting the dominance of Grey Tech (1) and building Life Boats (see @Rushkoff's Survival of the Richest), vs. building an alliance of Earth Stewards and Green Tech to break that dominance, without retreating into gated communities.https://www.futurescenarios.org/4-descent-scenarios/4-3-four-descent-scenarios/I favour the latter. In both environmental and digital contexts.(1) The link text calls it "Brown Tech" but I prefer my term.
(DIR) Post #AkmBoyIVWFQtK38WQ4 by matt5sean3@urusai.social
2024-08-09T02:17:41Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@strypey You're already well convinced that data farming concerns are invalid, but seem to have willingness to engage about moderation problems that Threads presents. Moderation is the primary issue with having someone tied to the US far right also being tied to Threads.If federation with Threads is done on a limited basis, that seems like the optimal available point for adversarial interop given present tooling. People are able to retain connections to people on Threads that they care about while the Fediverse is able to retain the small world cultures that have been cultivated here while providing only the smallest possible "in" for malicious Threads posters.(1/3)
(DIR) Post #AkmNa3VD5HQQZTjRT6 by matt5sean3@urusai.social
2024-08-09T04:29:23Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@strypey After some experimentation on this. Limiting is actually an even weaker sanction than I thought. A limited account can still "at" arbitrary accounts and it will show up under "filtered notifications." Asking users to just ignore the notification sight unseen given the level of vitriol we've seen fly on big tech platforms before, I'm not willing to pit the user's willpower against their curiosity.Mastodon's moderation options are just, absolutely anemic.
(DIR) Post #Akq47LswXNMMgpGwHA by matt5sean3@urusai.social
2024-08-09T02:19:30Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
With further context, it sounds like they hired Dustin Carmack as a head lobbyist, more or less. He seems to be forwarding the whole TikTok should be removed from Chinese ownership story. That's mostly oblique to the Fediverse's concerns with Threads. Meta payrolling him to continue that makes sense. But his association to a wider project that includes plans to erase communities that were core to creation of the Fediverse and the ActivityPub protocol makes giving Meta a large degree of caution for now funding him very fair.(2/3)
(DIR) Post #Akq47MyeTdWK4ox0oS by matt5sean3@urusai.social
2024-08-09T02:20:39Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
Your initial post looks dismissive of caution in engaging with federation to Threads. So, bringing the ideas home, why not be clear in your advocacy that federation ought to be done, but admit that caution in doing so is reasonable?I know that you're saying "Nobody here is defending Meta." but you push that folks should go forward with federation to Threads anyhow. Without further detail it seems that you're advocating full federation to Threads in pursuit of helping people leave Threads, not a more limited federation as you shifted to in your responses to me.(3/3)
(DIR) Post #Akq47NjRfex0PwqNkW by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2024-08-10T23:10:19Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
(1/2)@matt5sean3 > If federation with Threads is done on a limited basis, that seems like the optimal available point for adversarial interop given present toolingI'm glad we agree on this. I think we also agree that the tooling needs to improve, both with new FEPs and wider implementation of existing ones. There was some good discussion of this in an episide of the Decentered Podcast;https://wedistribute.org/podcast/oliphant-in-the-room/#podcast #Decentered #WeDistribute #TrustAndSafety #moderation
(DIR) Post #Akq47OmJmSqJf9CBrk by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2024-08-10T23:10:20Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
(2/?)@matt5sean3> Moderation is the primary issue with having someone tied to the US far right also being tied to ThreadsThat's another good reason for people to leave Chains, and a good reason for us to do everything we can to make that easier, not harder.Why do I think maintaining some level of federation with Chains helps here? Apologies for answering my own rhetorical question with a rhetorical question, but how many people now on smaller servers started out on mastodon.social?
(DIR) Post #Akq47coFc4hvBCCvp2 by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2024-08-10T23:10:20Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
(3/?)Those of us who've been in the fediverse longer than Gargron have been practicing adversarial interop since the first Titter exoduses of the mid-2010s. When mastodon.social first grew into a cancerous mega-instance, and Gargron started expecting other devs to treat whatever Mastodon does as the fediverse standard.We're well practiced at ensuring the wellbeing of fedizens and the health of the network in the face of uncooperative dominant players.
(DIR) Post #Akq47uUhrTlk1nCZrE by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2024-08-10T23:10:21Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
(4/?)@matt5sean3> his association to a wider project that includes plans to erase communities that were core to creation of the Fediverse and the ActivityPub protocol makes giving Meta a large degree of caution for now funding him very fairSure, but as I pointed in the very first post of this thread, fundamental opposition to Meta is one thing shared by everyone in this debate. No Metasplaining is required. Some of us have been fighting Meta for 15 years or more; https://web.archive.org/web/20160324163533/http://www.coactivate.org/projects/disintermedia/blog/2010/05/24/transition-to-web-free/
(DIR) Post #Akq48G2RlEEgqW9Jrc by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2024-08-10T23:10:21Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
(5/?)@matt5sean3> You're already well convinced that data farming concerns are invalid I don't think they're germaine to the discussion about whether or not to federate. But *of course* they're valid. I really don't understand how you reach the conclusion that I think they're not. That contradicts everything I've ever said on the subject, here and elsewhere, including pretty much coining the use of "DataFarming" in this context.
(DIR) Post #Akq48jDnG7XlM6gI4m by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2024-08-10T23:10:21Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
(6/?)In this thread alone, I said;> DataFarmers already have oodles of my words etc, so follow-spam is a much bigger concern for me. For others, who want to use the verse for more sensitive conversations, it will be different.> the problems to be solved (eg granular access to posts, E2EE DM) > exodus via federation, will redistribute the power monopolised by DataFarmers, back to people and our communities.That's just within this last sequence of posts you're replying to.
(DIR) Post #Akq4FDn8Vsfxu8JBya by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2024-08-10T23:10:21Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
(7/7)@matt5sean3> why not be clear in your advocacy that federation ought to be done, but admit that caution in doing so is reasonable?Fair point. I've been meaning to blog about the topic, so I can explain my position more clearly.But my main point in the initial pair of posts was that both sides of the Anti-Fedi Meta Pact debate are driven by a deep antipathy to Meta and everything they stand for. So guilt trips aren't helpful, whichever side of the debate they're coming from.