what I'd love to see is #funkwhale also support basic posts ala #mastodon. I bet we could get a pretty cool pod going at ccmusic.social if this was the case. #ccmusic
Way more interesting and healthy fediverse news is happening in the shadows and is barely getting discussed! Which is: Discourse has federation between different instances of itself and other #fediverse software such as Mastodon working!
@liaizon Stuff like this will make engaging with new online groups much easier - no need to create a new account for every single place you want to comment at.
I moderate a forum (it uses nodebb) and spam is always a concern, but then the fediverse concept of distributed server moderation and banning entire untrusted servers should help to alleviate that somewhat.
Mastodon founder, Eugen Rochko, praises Threads entry into the #Fediverse because it makes Mastodon “a far more attractive option.”
This is fairly obvious and basic network effects since both Threads & Mastodon become more valuable as their users can now share content across these services seamlessly.
This angers Mastodon admins for whom the fact that not a lot of people use Mastodon was a selling point. They do not want it to grow and be useful to more people.
Hey hcommons.social and the #fediverse: we've made the decision not to federate with #Meta and #Threads. We do not feel that we can adequately protect members of our community from potential attacks from anti-LGBTQ+, anti-Black, anti-academic, or other extremists who can freely create accounts and sow hatred on Threads unless we block the server. We do not want to allow any kinds of connections that would make our most at-risk users less safe.
We understand that this may disappoint some of you, and that you may wish to seek another instance that will allow you to communicate more freely with your friends on that network. Please read more about our reasoning on our team blog: https://team.hcommons.org/2023/12/15/threads/
Okay #Fediverse, let’s get something straight. We are all grown ups here (hopefully) and can make choices for ourselves. We alive in a society that allows us the freedom to choose for ourselves what to do.
Why would you allow or want to be part of an instance where they choose for you who or what to block? I understand that there are BAD people on #Meta, just as there are on EVERY platform on the internet.
Give the regular people on each platform a chance to been seen.
@SallyStrange I understand why we have moderators...I have been a moderator for years. Moderate a Discord server, etc. What I am saying is...sit down and follow along now, that if we just sit back going around blocking entire instances, etc. What is the point of moderating at all? We are just stopping stuff at the top level?
Now I understand that some users wouldn't want to start with housekeeping (blocking their own), but keeping accounts that aren't bad from being seen is DUMB.
@kylewritescode@SallyStrange If an instance wants to block meta, it will draw people who don't want to deal with things like harassment from trolls on meta. I know people who don't want the abuse. As a white dude I don't face the same abuse levels so will be on a federated site with meta but I judge no one who takes an undue level of abuse just because of their demographics
With yesterday's announcement that Meta is starting to test Threads and ActivityPub integration, I see the #Fediverse is at an all time high again of whining and crying and being butthurt over it all.
I get stating your opinion about not wanting them here or whatever, but come on people, don't sound like a little 2 year old who lost their pacifier. It gets old, quick.
Just mute/block and move on and be done with it all. It's really that damn simple.
A project has started to build a #Fediverse#testsuite, so it becomes possible to systematically test interoperability between applications in the fediverse.
It is going to need some virtualization, to run "substantial" server-side applications for testing. So we'd like to know what development and virtualization platforms #ActivityPub developers develop and test on.
If you are a Fediverse developer, could you spend 5min and answer our survey?
Oh awesome, I open my app to find the #fediverse in a giant collective panic because a social platform owned by a giant company dares to join it.
Fedi: “I want an open platform where everything is standardized”
(#Threads enables ActivityPub)
Fedi: “NOT LIKE THAT ANYTHING BUT THAT”
If you declare an open standard and provide the clearly superior ecosystem, you relinquish control of who uses it just by it being open. You can’t have it both ways. Ever.
In the light of renewed conversations about Meta and Threads, I would like to remind everyone that it is now easier than ever to run your own fediverse community, without having to worry about setting up and maintaining your own server.
One of the world’s longest-running experiments has been going for 144 years!
In 1879, botanist William Beal wanted to study how long buried seeds would remain viable. He buried bottles w different seeds in a secret spot on Michigan State's campus.
Every 20 yrs, a small group scientists dig up the bottles & seeds continue to germinate 🌱 (My husband @DavidLowry is the one on the right).
Default instance blocks should largely replace defederation
Since what content users might want to see is quite unlikely to match which servers the admins tolerate, choosing instance on the Fediverse can be quite complicated, which is inconvenient and off-putting for new users.
For this reason, and simply that the Fediverse is stronger united, I believe defederation should ideally be reserved for illegal content and extreme cases. If Fediverse platforms would allow instances to simply block the rest for users by default, the user experience would be the same, unless they decide otherwise.
Content isn't cached unless someone follows it anyways.
And I'm not sure what you mean with that latter part; what difference would this make in what content admins can see before they cast their judgement on a server?
What op said still stands: if only one of your users follow a high-traffic, heavy-content /c/, then the server is caching all of that content for one person.
E.g., there’s this great bot on Mastodon that posts random fractals, and the highest-voted ones “breed” to create a new generation of child fractals. The bot posts a static image and an animated movie of each new child every 4 hours. The images are ca 5mb each; the movies are between 20 & 40mb ea. That is, on average, 210mb/d, or 1.4gb per week. That’s a lot of data. You might, as an admin offering a free service, not want to have to pay for that much storage just because one or two users are suscribed to /c/flamereactor (“FlameReactor” is the name, so you can find this mind-blowingly awesome bot). There’s also bandwidth considerations, both on the pull and when users request the content.
I like the idea, though, and will suggest a tweak, tried and true from Usenet days: provide the ability to unblock to only paying users. It’d give admins control, plus money to offset storage costs. Maybe provide three options to admins: full defederation; auto-block with any user able to unblock, for odeous but low impact sices; and auto-block with unblock for only users in some group - close friends, paying users, whatever.
Lemmy could also transcribe content into links back to the source, but that’s just punting the bandwidth costs onto someone else, and I wouldn’t be surprised if this is frowned upon within The Federation (although it’s common practice with Reddit and X(twitter) content).
Rachel Lambert, Director of Product Management at Meta just posted about working with the #fediverse
"Working with experts to figure out how we can reshape regulations that are built for closed systems, and adapt them to more open ones"
Ah. That's probably the game.
They've performed significant regulatory capture, and they're going to come out swinging about how the fediverse is full of material that requires regulation, and that anyone participating has to implement policies that are impossible at a hobby scale.
