>1. Fediverse sustainability. What are the economic, psychological and emotional pressures on instance operators and other infrastructure providers? How can we support them?
import https://blog.freespeechextremist.com/blog/fse-vs-fbi.html
>2. Creator economy. What social, organizational, and technical infrastructure do content creators depend on? What are we missing on the Fediverse?
If you can figure out how to do money transfers in a way that isn't a massive doxxfest and also doesn't constantly get shat on by investors, bankers, governments, etc., you'll probably make a few million from people thanking you for freeing them from that bullshit.
(Hint: BMT Micro is about as close as we'll ever get.)
>3. Cooperatives. social.coop, cosocial.ca and data.coop are all great examples of coops on the fediverse. Does this democratic and participative corporate structure provide an advantage for the Fediverse?
The whole point of decentralisation is that everybody is effectively free to moderate themselves: They choose an instance that they like the moderation of, if such doesn't exist, they create it. So, no, it's good for an arena game and that's about it. (I've toyed with the idea of writing a bot that's capable of parsing rules to some extent that can be set as the head of an instance where people try to manipulate each other into voting for rules that will get themselves banned, but for it to be fun I think you have to allow sufficiently arbitrary rules that a bot would never be capable of enforcing them.)
>4. Web Monetization. Many Fediverse projects have implemented this API. We'll be identifying two more multimedia projects and helping them use the protocol.
ur an fgt, and worse, a mastodonger
> a mastodonger
sign.png
An author of ActivityPub living on one of the most walled of instances I've seen.
On the other hand, it may involve a disability: he had to split up a 4-item list into two posts because of his character limit.
character_limit.jpg
masadong_disability.png
toot.png
All I wanted was to point out the counterproductive nature of half the points the grant is funding, talk about and maybe convince him to change his mind on some of it. And we ended up here. Honestly expected better from someone who has been here since GS days.
I think it is counterproductive to try to create yet another third protocol instead of trying to fix an already heavily established and more or less proven to work one. The reinvent the wheel mindset of, oops this failed; we have to reinvent it; is a dangerous one.
@phnt Personally, I find the reinvent-the-wheel mindset very healthy. It's literally how we got here, how evolution works, but that was not what I wanted to say.
What I wanted to say was this: we are using a protocol that, sooner or later, will get coopted, and the big players will force everybody else to adopt whatever they come up with; so maybe we should start studying the protocol as it is now, find ways to improve on it (even if that means a complete reinvention) and make it capitalism-proof. And we better do it now that when AP becomes AP+Crypto or AP+Meta.
Do you prefer these corpo motherfuckers dictating the terms of what is rightfully ours, @p? Ancap is a contradiction in terms.
> Do you prefer these corpo motherfuckers dictating the terms of what is rightfully ours
The mistake is the dichotomy: the problem isn't the commercial activity, it's the voluntary loss of agency and the injection of politics. Most of the people voting "yes please decide for me" are "anti-capitalists" to begin with.
"It's yours if you use it."Whose is it if you don't? Conflating corporatist dingii with capitalism introduces a divisive false dichotomy. "Either you think these guys should be the ones to determine the future of the protocol or you oppose capitalism" is kind of absurd, isn't it?
@p Not at all. Ancap is a contradiction in terms because anarchism predicates that there should be no rulers (which usually translates into societies based on collaboration), while capitalim, as we can see time and time again, means that whoever owns what you need or want rules over you (i.e., your boss dictates what you do with your time and how much you get paid for it; companies dictate what you pay for goods and services). You can't be an anarchist and a capitalist. You have to choose.
I'm sure most ancaps think of themselves as rebels and anti-system, but they're nothing but useful idiots. (I'm not saying you are an idiot yourself, p, I unironically respect you, but in the words of Darth Vader, “you know it to be true.”)
@p
>> (I'm not saying you are an idiot yourself, p
> You can say it, I've been called worse by friends.
I still wouldn't. I don't know if you consider me a friend, but I do think of you as one. We just disagree on this particular topic.
retard-neighborhood.png
> anarchism predicates that there should be no rulers
So who stops me from exchanging fungible currency for goods and services?
> You can't be an anarchist and a capitalist.
See attached.
> (I'm not saying you are an idiot yourself, p
You can say it, I've been called worse by friends.
> respect
Shucks and dang, friend.
> in the words of Darth Vader, “you know it to be true.”
I do not believe it to be true, no. I am a Southwesterner by birth and by temperament. I'm happy as long as no one engages in the coercive use of force and that if there is an attempt, I can respond to that attempt. We had this, out in the west, until the glowies set up shop: the bank was as as secure as its ability to defend itself. Some towns didn't want you to enter heavily armed: a collective interested in preserving the security of the collective. I don't have trouble with such an arrangement. Someone comes after me, I'll open fire. It seems reasonable to me: non serviam, sed pacta servabo.
manacts.jpg