Egregoros

Signal feed

Timeline

Post

Remote status

Context

37

@p This is a good analysis, and I can confirm that there is indeed some coordination between the organizations and people you mentioned. I wouldn't call it a conspiracy, though. I know some of them well enough to conclude that it is a not a single organization, but a loose group. Some of them seem to be fake, but others seem to be sincere in their convictions.

I'd like to share a couple of additional links you may find interesting:

- https://about.iftas.org/yoel/

Remember this guy? Given the timing, I suspect that some of these projects were supposed to be sinecures for former Twitter employees.

- https://codeberg.org/fediverse/fep/pulls/140

This is a draft of a FEP about mandatory CSAM scanning. As one of the FEP repo maintainers, I immediately raised concerns about privacy, centralization, etc. That made me persona non grata at W3C.

@phnt @p Curiously, Gleason was supportive of the proposal, although at the time he already moved to Nostr (IIRC).

Also, some strange things started to happen in the aftermath of closing that PR. I started seeing vague posts expressing moderation concerns on Codeberg and SocialHub (in this thread, for example: https://socialhub.activitypub.rocks/t/scope-of-the-socialhub-policy/3506). People suddenly started talking about adding a CoC, etc etc. But every time I asked what this is about, there was silence.

@silverpill @phnt

> Curiously, Gleason was supportive of the proposal

Is that curious?

> Also, some strange things started to happen in the aftermath of closing that PR. I started seeing vague posts expressing moderation concerns on Codeberg and SocialHub (in this thread, for example: https://socialhub.activitypub.rocks/t/scope-of-the-socialhub-policy/3506). People suddenly started talking about adding a CoC, etc etc. But every time I asked what this is about, there was silence.

HOLY FUCKING SHIT
@silverpill @phnt Okay, well, to be fair, the timestamp on the "Scope of the socialhub policy" post is August 1, 2023, and the "PhotoDNA Attestation extension" is from August 4, but I think that was possibly preemptive, because he posted this on August 18:

https://socialhub.activitypub.rocks/t/scope-of-the-socialhub-policy/3506/9

> Thanks. So, if I have a problem with how someone is behaving in PRs on codeberg, what do I do next?

And then in https://socialhub.activitypub.rocks/t/scope-of-the-socialhub-policy/3506/12 and https://socialhub.activitypub.rocks/t/scope-of-the-socialhub-policy/3506/13 , he made it explicit that this was about the PhotoDNA discussion.

And he directly retreats into "But think of the optics of not thinking of the children!"

> I ended up withdrawing the PR. I had adapted the proposal in the Stanford Internet Observatory’s Child Safety report into a FEP to start the discussion process. I was attacked personally in the comments, and the FEP wasn’t allowed to be merged. I don’t think it helped our movement to have such vigorous opposition to developing CSAM filtering standards.

@p Reminds me of what Chapman says in the first essay I ever read on Meaningness;

"... you could recognize sociopaths and eject them. Geeks may be pretty good at the recognizing, but are lousy at the ejecting. Mops don’t recognize sociopaths, and anyway don’t care. Mops have little investment in the subculture, and can just walk away when sociopaths ruin it. By the time sociopaths show up, mops are numerically most of the subculture."

https://meaningness.com/geeks-mops-sociopaths

@icedquinn @fish @phnt @silverpill

@strypey @light @p @fish @phnt @silverpill that isn't what popper wrote even though it is deeply misquoted.

the paradox of tolerance is an open society always contains the possibility that people vote away their open society. it is the sine qua non of an open society. once you have thought police "to protect democracy" you no longer have an open society. and have extinguished your liberal democracy.

the society protects from violence against extreme opinions and vigilance protects against voting the extreme opinions in to place. you can't get rid of it without no longer having the thing you are trying to protect.

nobody seems to have ever read the book.

(1/?)

@icedquinn
> nobody seems to have ever read the book

I admit I haven't (I must), but I did investigate what Popper actually said;

"If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them."

https://www.libertarianism.org/columns/paradox-tolerance

@fish @phnt @p @silverpill @light

@strypey @fish @phnt @p @silverpill @light
if you read the book, the context of this claim is after 25% of the book goes on about how much popper hates plato and spent chapters reiterating "plato's republic is authoritarian as fuck, actually"

the stuff about limited tolerance is spoken in direct context of people exiting a classical authoritarian society and discussing the dangers of grognards sliding society directly back in to hierarchical strong man cultures.

people don't read it and decide it means calling randos nazis but it was spoken with the very real and ongoing concern throughout time of people rotting democracy back in to dictatorships.

poppers smugness is that if violence is off the table, then reason holds for the best argument, and the best argument is empirically the open society, so they have the advantage of self-demonstrating being the best outcome and not needing special favor.

the whole book is very much against authoritarian solutions to problems. unlimited tolerance is spoken next to societies that literally did the "someone is a threat to our power with their words, kill them" behavior people actually misquote the paradox to justify.
@p @icedquinn @fish @phnt @strypey @silverpill @light
Tweets having 140 character limit made sense before smartphones, when we used Twitter via sms (text 40404) . Not sure why Mastodon castrates itself for any reason other than fetish.

Does any Mastodon instance have Twitter-like text messaging or did they ever? I remember statusnet had xmpp built in but I don't think we ever had proper texting set up. (Maybe this is something revolver should consider)

As long as Mastodon is wearing a chastity belt, the char length be 140 instead of 280 (tweets 2.0 - now twice as much) / 500 (toots are almost twice as big as tweets 2.0 but 500 is a nice round number) because it's a number that actually makes sense

maybe they can get government funding from EU to implement sms integration to make it easier for the government to protect their users.

@sampler @icedquinn @fish @p @strypey @silverpill @light The reason is Gargron was autistic about his vision of a Twitter replacement and posts longer than 500 chars look ugly in the UI. It's a problem that will never get fixed because Mastodon desperately wants to be a Twitter alternative including the way it looks and displays threads.

The actual solution would be to widen the post view and decrease post text size, but that is too much to ask.

@p
> WE HAVE TO GET YOU MORE LETTERS

If multi-post threads really bother you I can switch to my Friendica account. I keep forgetting I have it, and I *hate* the cludgy interface with a burning passion. But if you *really* need me to ...

> He should try having a better frontend. (Tweetdeck has always sucked.)

The default Masto interface is modelled on Pinafore and has been for years. Although the one modeled on TD is still there as an opt-in.

@icedquinn @fish @phnt @sampler @silverpill @light

@strypey @icedquinn @fish @phnt @sampler @silverpill @light

> If multi-post threads really bother you

Not really, it just seems like at some point, tagging overhead eats the limit. Even Twitter stopped doing that, like, tags and links stopped counting towards the character limit. Mastodon *could* do the former because tags are an extra field (and more or less unconstrained).

I do think that it does make threads harder to read and participate in (by increasing the likelihood of duplication: if you have two paragraphs and the second one covers something relevant to the first, but people that go chronologically see the first one and then write a different version of your second paragraph before finding your second paragraph; this can compound, it is very funny when it does), but I'm just pokin' yer ribs, I ain't tore up.

> The default Masto interface is modelled on Pinafore and has been for years. Although the one modeled on TD is still there as an opt-in.

Ah. I mean...you see the UI that I wrote and use, I'm not sure what Pinafore *is*. (And if it gives you an idea, I used to use the bitlbee Twitter backend as my only Twitter interface. Until they killed off *all* alternative clients, you could have a reasonable time with Twitter by treating it like an IRC channel.)
@strypey @icedquinn @fish @phnt @sampler @silverpill @light For one thing, short names on short instances producing short tags. They've enshrined as behavior some half-assed incorrect encoding of the *intended* behavior and this is how you end up with crusty, shitty behavior that is *mandated* because otherwise it doesn't *work*.

This is why Mastodon should be completely ignored by protocol implementors: they want to be the Mastodon Network, fine, let them. Stop letting them stomp on protocol design because someone on a jithub issue whined until someone did the dumbest fucking implementation that solved half of the wrong problem. It is time to cut them loose.

@silverpill @icedquinn @fish @sampler @p @strypey @light

https://git.pleroma.social/pleroma/pleroma/pulls/7875

This does not implement anything meaningful in the spec and only makes quotes work on Mastodon (because they even fucked up that which worked for years before their attempt).

Trust me when I say that if the proper workflow as envisioned by Mastodon gets implemented in Pleroma, it gets patched out by most larger Pleroma instances almost immediately. Myself included, so if Nicole doesn't make it a toggle, I will. Nobody but Mastodon wants this, and I don't want the Twitter copy of hidden replies either.

@silverpill @phnt @icedquinn @fish @sampler @strypey @light

> Like, what's the plan? Let Mastodon/W3C do their thing until incompatibilities accumulate and the network splits?

They are not meaningfully a part of the fediverse at this point. They have made a Twitter. It is no longer a platform that you use to communicate with friends: it is a broadcast-only circle-jerk and when it fails to be a broadcast-only circle-jerk people that want to "control the experience" and that can't distinguish between startup dipshittery and tech built by people to communicate with each other. Look at the early posts by the hachyderm dipshit, that guy's like "Oh, this isn't going to work, we have to eject these people and we have to make it advertiser-friendly because if we don't then fedi will never replace Twitter!" I don't want to replace Twitter with a shitty clone of Twitter: I want to replace Twitter with something good.

I intend to have a platform to communicate with friends and strangers. I don't really care if Mastodon decides to create a desert and call it peace. They have fundamentally different goals. Nobody complained when Gab fucked off (and they were, in many cases, fucked off before that: https://pastebin.com/E0k5fcd6 ), but somehow Mastodon is important? Go look at what they're putting onto the network: https://mastodon.social/explore .
gab_fears_the_fse2.png
gablins-fear-fse.jpg
trannydemonhackers.png

@p @icedquinn @fish @phnt @sampler @strypey @light

The point I am trying to make is not about Mastodon specifically. It's about network effects. I believe that in case of a network split almost all developers and users will defect to the Mastodon side, even those who are making fun of Mastodon today.

It's not going to be like Gab.

Of course, this situation is mostly theoretical, I don't expect it to happen within the next 2-3 years. And obviously, I don't think that we should be especially concerned about being cut off from the Mastodon Network. I am talking about building a viable alternative.

Replies

50

@Deplorable_Degenerate
> What if they join our instances though?

Instances are like pubs. People like to hang out in different kinds of pubs, and that's OK. A pub stops being what it is if the social centre of gravity shifts. But that just means it becomes something else, and that's OK too.

As long as our city has space for many different kinds of pubs, everyone can find 1 or more they enjoy.

@icedquinn @fish @phnt @sampler @p @silverpill @Eiregoat@nicecrew.digital @light @coolboymew

@strypey @Deplorable_Degenerate @icedquinn @fish @sampler @p @silverpill @light @coolboymew

>A pub stops being what it is if the social centre of gravity shifts. But that just means it becomes something else, and that's OK too.

I disagree with this, instances are communities and those that try to shift the culture of the community unnaturally should be expelled from it and find another community. This is how hostile takeovers of communities happen and has been called invading or being a disruptive guest in forums for a reason. You will get kicked out of a pub for being disruptive as well.

(1/?)

@phnt
> those that try to shift the culture of the community unnaturally should be expelled from it

Sure, but that's clearly not what I'm talking about. Culture change in any community is slow but constant, as the people in them change. If some people leave and others join, this contributes to the same effect. The social centre of gravity in a loose-tie community is always shifting.

@icedquinn @fish @Deplorable_Degenerate @sampler @p @silverpill @light @coolboymew

(3/3)

I mean, I remember when the cluster of people represented in this conversation arrived in the fediverse en masse. Mainly by joining quitter instances which ... weren't really the right pub for them. What did the veterans do? Did we try to have you banished from the city altogether?

No. We helped you set up your own pubs, and then some of you started Pleroma (and postActiv, RIP), or forked Misskey, etc. The tension between your needs and ours was handled creatively, to mutual benefit.

@strypey
>Sure, but that's clearly not what I'm talking about.
>The social centre of gravity in a loose-tie community is always shifting.

I misunderstood what you meant in that case.

>https://nora.codes/post/the-fediverse-is-already-dead/

I'm very conflicted about that post. It has a point that "Fediverse" outside of people developing it means very little (usually called the Mastodon™ network anyway) since it is a half-split network at this point. On the other hand it actively promotes this split, even gives it a name. The Fediverse the writer and I want are different in that regard. Fediblock effectively turning into a harassment tool with minimal value instead of its supposed original goal can probably be attributed to that.

Not that it matters much these days anyway since the two halves barely talk to each other now, but I still want the Fediverse where breaking federation isn't a design goal (signed fetch domain enforcement) and where the content users see is controlled by the user and not by the instance administrators as it usually is the case in the Mastodon side. It's not something that will probably ever become reality, but it's a worthy goal I think. The wild west banter I like isn't something everyone can handle though.

>These are all perfectly fine variations in the pub life of a city.

All it boils down for me is: "I don't agree with the Fediverse you want, but I won't try to prevent you from having it." I'm fine with anyone being here as long as they aren't disruptive guests in the community I'm in. If they want help, I'm happy to help.

>What did the veterans do? Did we try to have you banished from the city altogether?
>No. We helped you set up your own pubs, and then some of you started Pleroma (and postActiv, RIP), or forked Misskey, etc. The tension between your needs and ours was handled creatively, to mutual benefit.

Sadly this ability to handle tension seems to be mostly gone now. You see the desire to resolve conflicts and tensions rarely, instead the network keeps irrationally burning more and more bridges between the already split islands of what are the remnants of the Fediverse of the past.

@icedquinn @fish @Deplorable_Degenerate @sampler @p @silverpill @light @coolboymew

(3/?)

The video posted elsewhere in this hellthread demonstrates that there is a need for newbies setting up fediverse servers to have a simple way to protect themselves from spammers (including griefers). The obvious example is people spewing racist bile (no one needs to see that kind of low-effort toddler dickwaving). But from my POV, it equally includes identi-Moonies haranguing me for being a racist just for being in this conversation, or talking to folks from the 'Dark Side' at all.

(4/?)

Supporting newbie admins/mods - and especially self-hosters running single-tenant instances - is particularly important if we want a fediverse of many small-to-medium instances. Rather than having most people corralled into a handful of proprietary corporate instances (eg Threats), whose owners can afford to do adequate moderation in-house.

(5/?)

It would be easy to dismiss IFTAS as an attempt to impose BS-style centralised moderation on the fediverse. But I think that's a mistake. They're trying to solve the same problem, yes, but in a much more fediverse-esque way. Using standardised protocol plumbing that admins/mods can opt-in to, unlike the ATmosphere where BS's labeler is imposed on the whole network.

Maybe I'm naive and I haven't dug deep enough into the technical details to see the evil. If so, by all means, educate me.

(6/?)

@phnt
> Sadly this ability to handle tension seems to be mostly gone now

There's a lot more partisanship, for sure, something that comes with a larger population. But the veterans are still here! Still trying to get people to talk to each other and find win-win solutions that enable us all to peacefully coexist, instead of muttering in dark corners spreading scuttlebutt about each other.

(7/?)

One of those veterans is Evan P who was one of the founders of the original fediverse. Creating identi.ca, StatusNet which became GNU social, and pump.io which was the basis of AP. Yes, like all the veterans who were here before you lot, Evan's socially liberal and has very little time for alt-right brainworms. But we're also carefully nonpartisan when it comes to the tech.

I would be very concerned about what the SWF or SocialCG had planned if Evan wasn't such a prominent actor in both.

(8/?)

Jaz is a different story. An arrival on one of the 2017 ships, so not an OG like Evan, DeadSuperHero and Mike McG, or even CLM. But not, as often characterised, an opportunist who turned up as part of Eternal November.

Yes, Jaz is part of Newsmast as well as IFTAS, and toot.wales. But relatively speaking we're still a tiny dev community, so it's neither surprising nor suspicious that some really enthusiastic people have their fingers in a lot of pies.

(9/?)

I mean shit, if we're going to be wary of people for turning up all over the place, I'm suspicious AF!

I'm a longtimer at SocialHub (from before it was reestablished at the current subdomain), and at fediverse.party, where I'm now Lead Goose. I mouth off regularly in the Fediverse Ideas repo, and the.socialmusic.network. I turn up in a bunch of fediverse-related Matrix rooms, etc, etc.

(10/10)

What can I say? I'm autistic AF and the verse is one of my special interests. Maybe the same is true for some of the people getting shade cast on them here?

I don't want to propose anything radical but ... Have any of you tried the same kind of calm and reasonable discussion we're having here with any of the people you're suspicious of?

That said, some people do seem to be here to seed division, notably Pincus. But they tend not to contribute anything other than fountains of invective

@strypey
>but enables newbie admins/mods to find and use automated support provided by veterans.

I don't think "veterans" should have a say in moderation of an instance they aren't on. The instance administrator/mod team should do the moderation and that's it. The issue with outsourcing your moderation to someone, like Evan wants, and IFTAS and others are pushing (even Mastodon with its new grant for FASPs and content scanning), is that you have to fully trust those people and keep them constantly in check to not overreach/overreact/get biased etc. To use their favorite word, you need very good governance around those people. Worst of all, IFTAS is completely non-transparent in their moderation aggregation sources, receipts or reasons. They are a black box you either fully trust or don't trust at all. I'm very tempted to set up a throwaway instance just to have a look at their walled of CARIAD thing that requires admin privs to your instance.

>replaced by a standard protocol that keeps moderation decentralised

FIRES is that, but immediately after it released to the public in a usable form, I've already seen what people are interested in it. Namely Oliphant and his island networks (read: isolated echo chambers) project. I would be fine with FASPs and FIRES, if there wasn't such a large opportunity to misuse this for state-level censorship of the network years down the road. Something like Pleroma MRF which can optionally talk to some API server to make decisions, is something very similar in nature, but smaller in scope. It can still be abused, but it doesn't have that large of an impact and certainly not influence when compared to size of Mastodon.

>But from my POV, it equally includes identi-Moonies haranguing me for being a racist just for being in this conversation, or talking to folks from the 'Dark Side' at all.

Yeah that sadly happens and its those tensions and refusal to resolve conflicts I talked about. From experience you cannot be the bridge between the two "sides", it is simply impossible to walk the thin rope. One post with a slightly out of place joke and your efforts are now worthless.

>The video posted elsewhere in this hellthread demonstrates that there is a need for newbies setting up fediverse servers to have a simple way to protect themselves from spammers (including griefers).

There is a lack of documentation on how to host a Fediverse instance in general, which is something I would like to work on eventually. Something like resurrecting fediverse.express and making it more resource-centered then getting started centered. That said newbies will probably first join an instance and then consider making their own, which makes the moderation/defederation decisions visible to those users (even when Mastodon blocks access to those without an account) besides being able to ask others.

It is a need for sure, but I think there's more important needs than that currently.

>Supporting newbie admins/mods - and especially self-hosters running single-tenant instances - is particularly important if we want a fediverse of many small-to-medium instances.

100% agreed.

>It would be easy to dismiss IFTAS as an attempt to impose BS-style centralised moderation on the fediverse. But I think that's a mistake. They're trying to solve the same problem, yes, but in a much more fediverse-esque way. Using standardised protocol plumbing that admins/mods can opt-in to, unlike the ATmosphere where BS's labeler is imposed on the whole network.

I'm very hesitant with this considering their weird funding through various US and EU government agencies. Considering that Mastodon now received grants to implement these very shortly after they were released to the public, sponsored by some agency you've never heard of which has ties to the German government. It can be an honest and genuine interest in helping the Fediverse, or government-sponsored control of a decentralized network. Which one is it to you, I will leave you to decide:
https://fsebugoutzone.org/objects/55b92e72-d82f-4e9c-a730-34d09d071a99
https://fluffytail.org/objects/d89c0322-5c9d-43ae-81bd-b0eadeed6626
And now different parts of the same thread:
https://fluffytail.org/objects/dcd4037d-ed55-47d2-8919-ecbeae6b5db9 (Excerpts I took from Jaz's recent blogpost which I recommend to read for more context to this thread and IFTAS in general: https://jaz.co.uk/2026/03/13/there-are-a-million-fediverses-and-theyre-all-regulated/)
>Have any of you tried the same kind of calm and reasonable discussion we're having here with any of the people you're suspicious of?
https://fluffytail.org/objects/9acf376e-c018-4a6d-baad-154167628cc4 (I and @silverpill tried two months ago to have a similar conversation with Evan, I ended up getting blocked by Evan. Besides that my account is deactivated on Mastosoc after replying to a post made by Pincus (his Privacy Nexus blog to be precise), which is where most of these people are. cwebber blocked me after making a darker joke about ActivityPub extensibility and rubber law paragraphs a year or more ago which I'm fine with, I can be unhinged at times and was much more in the past. I have alts and now also SH if I really want to insert myself into a discussion, so none of this bothers me.)

>Maybe the same is true for some of the people getting shade cast on them here?

I would certainly want to know that, but so far everyone that is involved in this (Evan) and doesn't block me or this instance already for reasons was very touchy about the subject.

>I mean shit, if we're going to be wary of people for turning up all over the place, I'm suspicious AF!

That's not how this works. You aren't suspicious based on what places you show up, it's the actions and language used that speak to me. Otherwise I would also be suspicious of silverpill which I'm not despite him showing up basically everywhere where there is a discussion about AP. But I get your point, I'm basically a walking red flag to some of these people when I regularly talk to @p, have fun in hellthreads, shitpost, sometimes talk to Poasties and also join AP/FEP threads when they are interesting.

@icedquinn @fish @Deplorable_Degenerate @sampler @p @silverpill @light @coolboymew
Just want to point out the Nazi Bar allegory is bunk. Fascists operate by courting wealth, then buying the bar and turning it into a Nazi bar; they are the bartender, and they fool you into thinking they're just "tolerating" the Nazis who come in and bully people out.

Invaders don't arrive as a guest. They come in force. Hostile takeovers of communities by refugees fleeing disaster has n e v e r happened. If there's no army, there's no invasion. Invasion won't work without some military operations.

So yeah you can get kicked out of a pub for being disruptive. If your community's so weak it can't welcome outsiders though, that's not a problem with the outsiders.

CC: @icedquinn@blob.cat @fish@detroitriotcity.com @Deplorable_Degenerate@eveningzoo.club @sampler@freebeerextremist.com @p@fsebugoutzone.org @strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz @silverpill@mitra.social @light@noc.social @coolboymew@shitposter.world
@cy @icedquinn @fish @Deplorable_Degenerate @sampler @strypey @light @coolboymew

Have you noticed that the part of the thread you are replying to is mostly apolitical? Nobody is talking about a "Nazi Bar" or about "fascists".

>Hostile takeovers of communities by refugees fleeing disaster has n e v e r happened.

Factually incorrect, if you want the best example of that, look at furry communities and/or Tumblr exodus after its porn ban.

>If your community's so weak it can't welcome outsiders though, that's not a problem with the outsiders.

Outsiders are expected to respect the already existing culture of the community, that's it. Also a curious use of "weak". Weak to what, takeover?

(2/2)

@phnt
> Outsiders are expected to respect the already existing culture of the community

How true this is and what it means depends entirely on context and scale.

If you're talking about people joining a fediverse service, or coming into a pub where everyone doesn't know their name, then sure. If you're talking about people standing up new services to join the fediverse, or starting a new pub in a city a bunch of them just moved to, then no. They're free to enact their own culture there.

@strypey @strypey
>Can you expand on that? Who were the refugees here? What disaster were they fleeing? Whose communities were taken over?

None of this happened here on a large scale, I was speaking generally about communities all over the Internet. Some examples would the various imageboards where previous users got displaced by refugees coming from dying imageboards, same with various forums over the years. Or the probably worst, Tumblr refugees turning places like Twitter communities (yes those exist) to porn infested cesspools.

The closest we have here is people fleeing Twitter before and after Musk got it, starting dumb (de)federation drama/fediblock witch hunts etc. and making Fediverse more political than it already was. I don't know if Twitter qualifies as a "disaster" though. (If it wasn't apparent from this thread yet, I don't like politics and discussions about politics in general. To me Fediverse is a place to have fun, post memes, have interesting discussions and relax, not to indulge and ragebait myself with politics. So feel free to take this with a huge grain of salt.)

>How true this is and what it means depends entirely on context and scale.

Context and scale is a single Fediverse instance, or a small number of very close instances. Neither of you will probably remember the sleepy.cafe gang, or even knew that it existed, but it was a close community of handful instances with close relations and that's what I mean by close instances.

>If you're talking about people joining a fediverse service, or coming into a pub where everyone doesn't know their name, then sure. If you're talking about people standing up new services to join the fediverse, or starting a new pub in a city a bunch of them just moved to, then no. They're free to enact their own culture there.

The first one.

@icedquinn @fish @Deplorable_Degenerate @sampler @light @coolboymew
@phnt @icedquinn @fish @sampler @p @strypey @silverpill @light what's happening the most is they're fucking off back to Twitter.

Mastodon offers them nothing, Twitter offers a lot of the same social media breaking features like reply disabling along with the chance you might get your post in someone's For You feed and the advantage to them of being on the same site.

It's a literal meme that there are Twitter artists with I'M LEAVING THE SITE FOR BLUESKY GUYS posts followed up by a few months later with new posts like nothing happened.

(2/?)

But I agree with Johannes here.

The fediverse emerged from an understanding that no *one* ethical platform can replace the network effects of the megafauna (as CoHost quickly learned). Forcing Ryan to make BF opt-in - after years of causing no problems whatsoever as an opt-out bridge to the IndieWeb - was a ludicrous self-punch by the Mastodon HOA. If we can fully integrated ATProto stuff into the fediverse, so much the better.

(3/3)

ATProto is in the process of being standardised at IETF. Even if BS is killed tomorrow, and broken up and sold for scrap by its Venture Capitalist owners, ATProto is not going away. Any more than Nostr is.

The AP fediverse came about as a merger of OStatus, Diaspora and DFRN/Zot networks. It seems logical to me that in 10 years time we could be looking back at the AP, ATProto and Nostr networks the same way. From within a fediverse that somehow transcends and includes them all.

@strypey ATProto is fundamentally different in how it works, it is only decentralized to the smallest extent it can be. Moderation is purposefully more or less centralized with labelers. Which in no doubt is what IFTAS and Mastodon want to effectively build with FIRES and FASPs, it being more decentralized is just a side-effect of AP not being centralized by design. Blocking the central bsky labeler earns you a ban on bsky. These two networks are incompatible in how they operate and want to operate.

Now to the second part, this idea of replacing the status quo with Fediverse is a good idea on paper. Over the years I've watched the Fediverse get worse and worse in both its userbase and the content the userbase puts on the network because of this mentality. First it was years of Twitter refugees going to Mastodon and promoting heavy-handed moderation, breaking federation on purpose, creating fediblock and now IFTAS/FIRES/FASPs. All of these are the result of Fediverse's desire to replace the status quo with itself and it is a death sentence given enough time. Now imagine what bsky refugees will make of this place when they are even more opinionated in their views than the majority of Mastodon users. If Mastodon is what is left of the Twitter left leaving since ~2021, then Bsky is those that didn't leave Twitter because Mastodon was too much of wild west and Mastodon refugees. Opinionated extremists of the already opinionated.

Call it gatekeeping, because that's what it is, but these people should have their own walled of garden they can play in and not bother anyone else. The irony of being part of development of a network that lets anyone say anything they want, where users have no control over other users, while promoting gatekeeping users is not lost on me, but bsky users are a net negative to this network, just like the majority of Mastodon users are.

I don't really care about Nostr since they are just Bitcoin maxis high on $current_llm_model (+ CP), but they are mostly harmless. That said, my timelines were dramatically improved since Gleason went there.