I'm heading over to neurodifferent.me folks! Follow me there - https://neurodifferent.me/@theautisticcoach

Mastodon鯖の構築どれがよい？

Being #ActuallyAutistic in our society means that we have experienced profound trauma in our lives. For many, that trauma is still present. We ignore it and try to work thru it, but it's there in our bodies & minds. We need to emphasize the need for trauma work in our community.

@blaine By the way, don't get me wrong. The intent is good, but I'm not sure these organisations can be shielded from abuse, influence, and money. Be it coop, grassroots, NGO, NPO, or not.

Sooner or later, we might have one, two, or three, ending up again with a “centralised” or “controlled” system, the very thing many of us left behind.

Nothing wrong with the idea, it's the implementation, the independence, and values, that's worrying.

RT GitHub Policy
There’s a new iteration of the #SantaClaraPrinciples with expanded guidelines for transparent, rights-based content moderation. Learn more about how @github contributed to the update:
https://github.blog/2021-12-21-how-github-contributed-santa-clara-principles-update/

:sys_twitter: https://twitter.com/GitHubPolicy/status/1473353826073645057

@ross @blaine In #Misskey and forks, users can choose to mute instances, threads, and by words; other than the usual mute and block by user/account.

If IIRC, Hubzilla also have similar features for the users, and more (like who can comment(?)) (I have to re-check these).

The instance admin then only have to use the instance mute/ban hammer, against accounts and instances, when actually needed.

Coz the thing is, the "third-party".. "users can report abuse to" will immediately become corrupted.

Especially since they will need to be funded.

You can have a marketplace of censors, but that will be hard to stop free-riding, I can just copy the blocklist.

I think it would have to be some kind of delegated trust, with a network of weights between all the nodes more than some overseer service, even a marketplace of them.

@blaine

@blaine Absolutely! But creating a massive blocklist that everyone uses kind of recreates the de facto law thing.

@Robotbeat

If ordinary users are going to be “rated” by various organisations and instance moderators, then there should also be “reputation scores” for those organisations and instance moderators (and their instance itself).

It should go both ways.

Is the server, and/or organisation, abiding by The Santa Clara Principles or not?

Users can then be more informed which server they want to join. Same with admins trusting third-party “signals” from these organisations.

@blaine

@autiomaa It sounds to me as the digital version of the National Social Credit System.

@blaine

@blaine Account reputation score could be possible to do technically (even in a distributed system), but there are many potential negative impacts from such scoring systems.

@blaine These organizations, and the admins who will use their services, should swear an oath to uphold the #SantaClaraPrinciples too. If an admin, paid or free, would not agree to it, then they should not be allowed to use their blocklists/reports/signals. In the same way, admins should not subscribe to such organizations who doesn't abide by The Santa Clara Principles.

https://santaclaraprinciples.org/

@youronlyone @gsora absolutely. This is a really good example of why we need sophisticated folks who can evaluate these sorts of attacks and make the right call.

It's unreasonable to expect admins of small instances to be able to do this themselves.

@blaine @gsora

That is already happening and has been abused before, and is continually being abused today.

Bad actors create fake accounts, pretend to be real accounts, then launch their server-disinformation campaign. "Server-disinformation", meaning, they will post content most server admins hate, then they will report those accounts in various blocklists and servers, with claims such as, "this server is so and so".

Server admins blocks the entire server w/o investigation bec. of 1 user.

@blaine @darius I like a lot of this idea. Like there’s currently a lot of duplicated labor that goes in through stuff like the fediblock hashtag. A lot of stuff that is just obviously wretched and should be blocked ends up taking attention from a ton of mods. I think the issue is when you get into tougher call territory. Or even worse things which are super polarizing.

Anti black racism is one such issue that’s been super polarizing on fedi. A lot of white folks want to be very dismissive of it when they see it and instead react with hostility. How does this third party service deal with that issue? Either they’ll have to play along and ignore the anti black racism too or they’ll risk being ignored by those instances (which is sadly a lot of them) that don’t want to grapple with the issue.

@blaine The instinct the centralize is common but I find it surprising from you.

Some sort of web-of-trust distributed thing is what the infrastructure needs. I'll trust instance B as much as my trust in A times my trust in it's trust.

When are we going to see a new #Fediverse instance for the #Filipino people?

A little #history:
* There was a #Friendika (with a 'k') #Philippines instance sometime 2010-2012.

* Friendika was renamed to #Friendica, and the first instance haven't been updated for quite some time at this point, so I launched my own public Friendica instance.

* By 2015, if I remember correctly, my public Friendica instance folded and went offline. (You need a generous sponsor to support the system.)

There hasn't been a Fediverse instance for Filipinos and for the Philippines since then. And to think, the Philippines is considered the “social media / social network capital of the world”, since 2008.

---

References: Social Media / Social Network Capital of the World
* https://web.archive.org/web/20081011094639/http://www.mb.com.ph/issues/2008/05/20/TECH20080520124703.html

* https://www.philstar.com/headlines/2018/02/03/1784052/philippines-still-worlds-social-media-capital-study

* https://blog.hslu.ch/majorobm/2020/03/30/digitalphilippines-5/

* https://www.statista.com/statistics/489180/number-of-social-network-users-in-philippines/

* https://jamalashley.com/2022/03/05/social-media-capital-of-the-world/

A doctor recommends “not” watching #Evangelion when in a state of depression

https://www.animesenpai.net/a-doctor-recommends-not-watching-evangelion-when-in-a-state-of-depression/

Me: *cough* #SerialExperimentsLain *cough*

#anime #tv

Or, to put it another way:

If we are going to compare "Fediverse vs. Mastodon" with "GNU/Linux vs. Linux" then it should be "W3C/Fediverse vs. Fediverse".

If we want to talk about core vs. software--"Fediverse vs. Mastodon"--then we should also talk about, "Linux vs Ubuntu".

If we are fine with calling the "Fediverse" as "Mastodon", then we should be fine calling "Linux" as "Ubuntu". In both cases, the 'software' is overshadowing the other platforms (or distros in Linux sense).

We can not compare the "Fediverse vs. Mastodon" debate to the old "GNU/Linux vs. Linux" debate, that's comparing apples and oranges.


@evan@prodromou.pub

It's not accurate (and appropriate?) to compare the "Fediverse vs. Mastodon" to the old “GNU/Linux vs Linux” debate.

The "Fediverse" is the "Linux" part in "GNU/Linux vs. Linux". If we are going to find a "GNU" in the "Fediverse vs. Mastodon", then it would be something like this: "W3C/Fediverse" (or technically, "W3C/ActivityPub").

Here's a comparison, to make it clearer:
1. "Organization": GNU -- W3C
2. "Core": Linux -- #Fediverse (or technically, #ActivityPub)
3. "Distro": Ubuntu/PopOS/PeppermintOS/etc. -- #Misskey, #Calckey, #Pleroma, #Hubzilla, #Friendica, #Mastodon, #Pixelfed, #BookWyrm, etc.

We like to use, "just like email", then:
1. "Organization": W3C (?)
2. "Core": email (or technically, SMTP)
3. "Distro": Gmail, Protonmail, AOLmail, Naver Mail, Tutanota, RiseUp, etc.

In the "GNU/Linux vs. Linux" debate, at the end of the day, it is about the core which is "Linux", and distros are Linux distros that take, more or less, a secondary position. In the same way that in the "Fediverse vs Mastodon" debate, it is about the core/network which is "Fediverse" (or "ActivityPub" if you prefer the technical term), and the platforms are "distros" that should take, more or less, a position after the "Fediverse".

It would be double-standards if we choose "Mastodon" in the "W3C/Fediverse vs Mastodon" discussion, when we chose "Linux" in the "GNU/Linux vs Linux" debate. At least, as far as comparing "Fediverse vs. Mastodon" with "GNU/Linux vs. Linux".

@evan@prodromou.pub