Since I’m banned from communicating with ActivityPub spec authors and they see no problem with it, they shouldn’t be surprised if I don’t follow their rules. The only path forward for me is to build my own network, and that’s exactly what I plan to do.
@r I went into cwebber’s video call and asked him to self-host so I could communicate with him (I’m blocked from Octodon) and he basically said “blah blah upholding community standards blah blah I’m happy with it”
@r Run by a 23 year old “they/she/her” who sometimes identifies as a girl but sometimes doesn’t. This is the server an ActivityPub spec author uses.
@r @alex
This mentality is so subtly but importantly wrong.
No one has an obligation to federate with anyone. This is *true* freedom. That's how real life works too.
The Fediverse is fractured, which is inevitable and natural, because the Fediverse most closely resembles real life, which is also fractured into communities.
btw, the "open" means "non proprietary".
It's only one checkbox to enable it, both in mastodon and pleroma.
@Jessica
Remember when I had to annoy and wheedle gargron for like 4 days straight before he'd check the box he wrote? And he took that time to turn my instance block into a user block so I wouldn't show up on the list? Good times.
@r @p @alex @torresjrjr
Some people say it's the complex over-engineering, but I think it has to be the social controls slipped into infrastructure and then hand-waved away that's is the real bloat. Whoops, wrongthink detected, better "protect my marginalized communities."
> > This is *true* freedom.
> ... for the admins
> blocking on people's behalf is the antithesis of freedom.
In *that* context, I agree. Ideally everyone would have their own instance, and federate as they wish. True freedom.
Obviously there's a huge barrier and cost to that, so entrusting someone else at a relatively small cost is the next feasible option.
The cost per freedom goes up for massive instances, which is why its important to de-clusterize.
> Ideally everyone would have their own instance, and federate as they wish.
This is the goal of cofespace.com, I want to push the ratio of users to admins as close to 1 as possible.
> Obviously there's a huge barrier and cost to that
Handshake problem, sure, but it's doable. The protocol might have to change to scale that up. (It's got to change to scale up anyway.) The problem is, as Alex noted, the P2P solutions aren't ready yet. (I've used twister.net.co, very cool but somewhat heavyweight; it's almost as involved as running Pleroma yourself. It's pretty quiet there, too: this is where the party is right now.)
I've got a project I'm hacking on intermittently that fixes the handshake problem but it'll be a minute, it's not top of the list.
> The cost per freedom goes up for massive instances
I'm not sure what this means.
@p @r @alex
Great to hear of those efforts. This is definitely a community effort and I'm eager to contribute.
> > The cost of freedom goes up for massive instances.
> I'm not sure what that means.
I meant that if you sacrifice some freedom and entrust your account to a bigger instance, the cost is greater because admins are more distant, their administrative desicions are more detached and less accountable, etc.
@p
This has always been my biggest worry. Mastodon is especially notorious for not just keeping control away from the end user, but also gaslighting said user.
Instead of a message saying "Communication with this server isn't possible because of a block on this server.", it just pretends people don't exist.
@r @alex @torresjrjr
> This is *true* freedom.
...For the admins, not the people using the instance. It's not a coincidence that the admins that are the most block-happy are the least transparent. People making decisions on behalf of others is the antithesis of freedom.