Live data from Hacker News

Mastodon 2.5 released

blog.joinmastodon.org

51–60 of 105 posts

Re: Mastodon 2.5 released

#51
post #47
post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m not sure how you could conclude that given that FB is essentially a growth engine designed to drive MAU numbers as high as possible. Meanwhile, people continue to seek out communities that do represent the types of interactions people want. I’d say it’s succeeding as much as facebook is.

> I’d say it’s succeeding as much as facebook is. Maybe I'm defining succeeding too narrowly, and sorry to be rude, but what universe do you live in where this is even close to true? Some quick googling shows the network hadn't even cracked 100k users in Feb: https://mastodon.social/@Gargron/99469840739197657 > FB is essentially a growth engine designed to drive MAU numbers as high as possible Right, and it does that…

Facebook is like daytime TV with 100 channels and nothing interesting to watch. That may be succeeding in financial terms but there is a lot of room for other services where the aim is not to earn as much money as possible and I stead cater to intelligent people instead of the masses.

Re: Mastodon 2.5 released

#52
Is there a way to make a mastodon instance for a private community where it requires registration (& approval) like a forum, but still have the federation between instances? (if not, is it possible to unfederate an instance?)

Re: Mastodon 2.5 released

#53
post #52

Is there a way to make a mastodon instance for a private community where it requires registration (& approval) like a forum, but still have the federation between instances? (if not, is it possible to unfederate an instance?)

Yes. It's very easy to lock down registrations, say to your family or coworkers, and still federate. You can also turn off federation if you want an internal-only instance.

Re: Mastodon 2.5 released

#54
post #39
post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Have you tried Mastodon? Yes. > You still pay someone else to run the server (or not, if you prefer), you can just choose who you pay, and which server. Sending toots does not require that you set up your own infra, re: the email example. Right, you either pay with your time or your money, as opposed to FB for which you pay nothing at all. Specialization of labor reduces costs, federation increases them. > This is…

> as opposed to FB for which you pay nothing at all. What makes you think FB is free? Oh you pay for it alright, with your precious, precious data.

I'm stunned that people still today don't realize that there is no, big and centralized free services. How would that work on the company side? Who pays for giant servers and software development and maintenance? People are not too sharp in 2018.

Re: Mastodon 2.5 released

#55
post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> as opposed to FB for which you pay nothing at all. What makes you think FB is free? Oh you pay for it alright, with your precious, precious data.

I'm stunned that people still today don't realize that there is no, big and centralized free services. How would that work on the company side? Who pays for giant servers and software development and maintenance? People are not too sharp in 2018.

|...there is no, big and centralized free services.

Wikipedia?

Re: Mastodon 2.5 released

#56
post #6

The broad approach to social networking presented by Mastodon and other federated networks is "spend your time/resources on funding the network instead of paying someone else much less to do it." It wont "work" for the same reason everyone doesn't host their own email service. It flies in the face of a broader cultural movement we have: specialization of labor. For instance, the solution to content moderation and har…

When you use a corporate social network, you are trusting a bunch of people trying to make enough money to pay Silicon Valley rent (never mind pay back huge piles of VC investment) to do the moderation. They are likely to be more interested in a constantly-rising user count and ever-longer user sessions that give them opportunities to sneak in as many ads around the edges as possible; they are probably only going to kick people off for behavior that can get the company sued.

When you use Mastodon, you are trusting a handful of people who are probably running it as a hobby to do the moderation. Their only goal may be to have a nice, chill place to chat with friends; they can kick people off for whatever kind of behavior they find undesirable, whether that be "repeatedly failing to post pictures of cats on Mandatory Cat Post Day", "talking about feet on No-Feets Friday", or "using the Banned Circular Letter six times" on an instance that demands you never use the letter O.*

And if an admin finds that they are getting a lot of reports of a foreign instance for behavior they forbid, they can defederate from that instance, thus slicing out a large source of undesired behavior in one go. Users can vote on moderation policies with their feet (though perhaps not on No-Feets Friday if that's the issue that's polarizing huge portions of the overall community) and move to another instance - or maintain two accounts if they want to keep a foothold on both sides of the divide.

I could probably spin this into a metaphor for representative democracy if I wanted. Pick an instance whose admin (and her moderation team, if it's big enough to have one) feels likely to agree with you on moderation, report violations, let her do the dirty work and maybe say "thanks" and give her a little something now and then.

----

* Of course, you could also kick people off your instance for things like "expressing political views opposed to the instance admin" or "acting like this is 4chan". But comedy examples are more fun, and less likely to make you snap into reflexive defense of whatever your position is.

Re: Mastodon 2.5 released

#58
post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> as opposed to FB for which you pay nothing at all. What makes you think FB is free? Oh you pay for it alright, with your precious, precious data.

I'm stunned that people still today don't realize that there is no, big and centralized free services. How would that work on the company side? Who pays for giant servers and software development and maintenance? People are not too sharp in 2018.

I resent the "not too sharp" comment, and the implication that I hadn't even considered the idea that you're paying with your data coming from all three of you.

I'll respond here to all of you that responded generally with "you pay with your data, it's not free."

Ok fine, but you don't know what you're paying with on Mastodon, because you have no idea what any one node might do with your data, because there is no centralized privacy policy. Not a problem, I'm sure you read the privacy policy of every website you join right?

I'm also not sure why you assume a free, ad-based Mastodon service wouldn't exist as the network scaled.

The network has like 100k active users. It's very much in 'virtue untested' territory.

Re: Mastodon 2.5 released

#59
post #52

Is there a way to make a mastodon instance for a private community where it requires registration (& approval) like a forum, but still have the federation between instances? (if not, is it possible to unfederate an instance?)

As I understand it, you can require users to get approval in order to register locally, and there are at least patches out there to create a whitelist of instances that are allowed to federate with you, but there's no way to require users from the allowed instances to get approval before interacting with local posts.

Re: Mastodon 2.5 released

#60
post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This looks like a networking protocol, but this is actually process for electing the main node in the network, which will eventually revert it back to the mean of centralization. Let's see how Mastodon scales. I don't entirely understand why you assume that one node will come to dominate such that it will be equivalent to a centralized system? The term "federation" is borrowed from political science for a reason. J…

> I don't entirely understand why you assume that one node will come to dominate such that it will be equivalent to a centralized system? One, or a small number, and because this is the history of these types of things. > The term "federation" is borrowed from political science for a reason. Just like in the USA, multiple federated states who share broad-strokes policies maintain interoperability while also maintaini…

> The USA is actually not a federation, and purposefully stopped being one (it turned in a confederation

You have it backwards. The USA was a Confederation (a weak alliance of almost entirely independent nations) under the Articles of Confederation, 1776-1789

Then in 1789 it became a Federation (a strong national union of autonomous but not independent states) with the new Constitution.

In a confederation, the central government has negligible power and states can come and go as they please. The EU is arguably a confederation, and it's pretty much the only modern example, because confederations rarely last long. Historical confederations include the CSA and Holy Roman Empire.

That is not the model that the Fediverse wants to uphold (otherwise it would be called the confediverse). Mastodon is intended to be structured as a Federation, like the United States, Germany, or Malaysia, with a strong but limited central power that maintains unity among the federated members, while mostly letting them do their own thing.

Post reply on HN