Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which one is your instance?
It's a fandom based instance hosted in germany, I have about 3000 unique weekly visits according to my backend analytics and around 30 or so MAU.
snouts?
Mastodon: Add end-to-end encryption API
141–150 of 188 posts
Re: Mastodon: Add end-to-end encryption API
#142Is there a mastodon server that doesn't require email for signup? Throw away providers did not work for me, free email providers require a phone number. It's like signal, the benefits are contrasted against metadata exposure.
I am not aware of any mastodon server like that but there are quite a few pleroma servers that accept fake emails.
I just wanna note that there is a strong comorbidity between "being a Pleroma" and "being blocked by a lot of Masto instances because you're run by someone with an anime girl icon who thinks the whole internet should be an acceptable place to behave like a denizen of the bowels of 4chan".
Re: Mastodon: Add end-to-end encryption API
#143Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Anything that isn’t photography is freedom of speech in Japan There was a lot of censorship during the Fukushima nuclear disaster by the government.
Never heard of such conspiracy theory before...
I did not imply that there was anyone conspiring. It feels like that word has been overused in order to silence any opposition in the past few years.
https://rsf.org/en/news/rsf-urges-japan-stop-pressuring-medi...
https://cpj.org/blog/2014/04/journalists-in-japan-face-threa...
https://foreignpolicy.com/2016/05/27/the-silencing-of-japans...
http://mediashift.org/2017/06/tsunami-nuclear-disaster-media...
https://www.dianuke.org/now-fukushima-darkness-japans-secrec...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Secrecy_Law
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/05/whistleblowers...
Re: Mastodon: Add end-to-end encryption API
#144e2e encryption isn't something you add as an "optional feature", but rather, something that should be in the design from day one, for all communications (mandatory).
I feel like this is the goal, but as unfortunate as it is now - that's not the case, and adding E2E encryption of any sort should be celebrated to perpetuate the idea that it's not an option, but a need just like adding authentication isn't an optional feature.
Re: Mastodon: Add end-to-end encryption API
#145Earlier quoted context omitted.
How many web developers know Erlang though? this project is mostly web based no?
There’s an entire web framework for Elixir called Phoenix. You’re painting Elixir as this obscure language that no one knows and while it’s undeniable that it may not be as widespread as JS, PHP or Python, it is not so marginal. I live in a European city that’s not a tech capital and a couple major startups use it, and I’ve seen it used in major apps across the web. Never used it myself but read how it excels at conc…
It is pretty much obscure, I don't think a couple of major startups is gonna cut it. Elixir never got the kind of adoption that will last for years and years after the hype is gone. Instead it had a nice spike a couple of years ago and i's declining already. Ruby can live for another 20 years based on the 10 good years it had, Elixir never had those years it seems. Yes, it got tremendous attention on hackernews and blogs, but actual adoption? Seems like startups are more conservative than one might guess.
Even worse, it's functional. So if a PHP/Ruby/Python dev wanna work on this cool OSS project, when it's in Elixir that's just another big hurdle.
See for yourself https://insights.stackoverflow.com/trends?tags=elixir
Ruby and PHP are also declining (well, relative to Stackoverflow questions), but Ruby still gets 10x more questions than Elixir and PHP 100X(!) more. Now sure, lots of PHP questions are from noobs who don't work in the industry. But if we start looking at jobs we're gonna see pretty similar results.
P.S when we look at frameworks it's about 60x more adoption for Rails vs Phoenix https://insights.stackoverflow.com/trends?tags=phoenix-frame...
Re: Mastodon: Add end-to-end encryption API
#146Earlier quoted context omitted.
No one controls Mastodon -- setup an instance and you're off to the races!
The federated Mastodon, the one people generally are talking about, is controlled, by a 'democracy' of sorts of the server owners. The technology itself is of course open, but if your content is not approved by the main Mastodon federation, then users will have to be signed into multiple Mastodon federations (if that's what they wish), one to see the main Mastodon federation, and one to see the one that got banned. B…
The definition of "free speech" many people in this thread use puzzles me greatly. If you come to my house and starts yelling things that offend me and I kick you out, I'm not infringing on your freedom of speech.
Based on what principles should server owners be forced to federate with third party servers if they don't want to? How is not wanting to federate with anybody "censorship"?
I've just setup a mastodon instance on a VPS to give it a try. For less than $5 per month you can have your own instance where you can invite like minded people and find people to federate with.
And if you can't find anybody to join you server or federate with you... Maybe you should think about what that says about you instead of screaming that you're being censored?
Re: Mastodon: Add end-to-end encryption API
#147Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am not aware of any mastodon server like that but there are quite a few pleroma servers that accept fake emails.
I just wanna note that there is a strong comorbidity between "being a Pleroma" and "being blocked by a lot of Masto instances because you're run by someone with an anime girl icon who thinks the whole internet should be an acceptable place to behave like a denizen of the bowels of 4chan".
Is being an anime fan a bad thing now? Or do you feel that putting a political label on someone just because they find a specific piece of software comfortable for them is a nice thing to do?
Anyway, in the same spirit one could say that "there is a strong comorbidity between being a harasser who jumps on random threads just to insult people as well as subscribing to racist and authoritarian idelologies and using mastodon" which (while true in my personal experience) would be unfair to the nice people that use mastodon and possibly cause these that read it to be prejudiced against mastodon users due to their software of choice.
Re: Mastodon: Add end-to-end encryption API
#148Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a fandom based instance hosted in germany, I have about 3000 unique weekly visits according to my backend analytics and around 30 or so MAU.
snouts?
No, but I will not disclose it directly either way, people might try to either doxx me or harass my instance. I've had that experience in the past.
Re: Mastodon: Add end-to-end encryption API
#149Re: Mastodon: Add end-to-end encryption API
#150Earlier quoted context omitted.
Instance banning is neither silent nor invisible. Every Mastodon instance has an About page (no login required) listing all instance bans and reasons, anytime. I would be in agreement with you about silent/invisible censorship, but that's not what's going on here. This is a categorically different problem than MITM.
> Every Mastodon instance has an About page (no login required) listing all instance bans and reasons There are instances which require an account in order to see the bans (cyber.space). There are instances which do not list bans at all. There are instances with made up reasons of banning made up instances (mastodon.art). Even that flagship instance lists incorrect reasons for removing instances (claims that certain…
You're right, my mistake. In some cases it is not transparent.
However, this is not a systematic censorship problem, unlike centralized services with opaque policy language and a complete boot out the door. People are free to run their own instances or have multiple accounts across different instances.
Whether you think they're correct is irrelevant to the question at hand. Freedom of speech and association means you're free to not federate/talk to those problematic instances, and maybe you'd be much happier for it. On the other hand, not being OK with it and trying to fight for transparency means you're trying to externally force these communities to be run in the way you want, which may be received well, but not always b/c forcing unwanted change is exactly the opposite point of Federation: communities will be built the way their members want to build it. Like the real world, some value transparency and some don't.
It's one thing to argue specific bans about specific instances and disagree on the other party's interpretation; it's a totally different claim to say that the entire system is corrupt with opaque censorship.
Mastodon != Fediverse