@mods
So here it is, my critic of mastodon.art regarding Universeodon.
There is a blog in which they have a bunch of reasons listed:
https://dotart.blog/dotart-blog/defederating-from-universeodon

---

> implementing full text search on the instance without being fully open that this is an opt-out service, or providing information on opting out ( https://blog.universeodon.com/mastodon-advanced-search-is-here)

So at first, im a bit confused what they mean by demanding that it is opt-out... Since this is a search provided from universeodon to universeodon users, they implemented it right into their system. Im guessing, its more about that they fear from having a global search which indexes the fediverse which also indexes things from users of their own instance without respecting the the noindex flag described in here: https://docs.joinmastodon.org/user/preferences/#misc

Inside universeodons blog about their own search implementation https://blog.universeodon.com/mastodon-advanced-search-is-here you will find links to the source code. I dont expect that the mastodon.art admin actually can understand the source code, but as far as i can see, they added a few properties which are now indexed and are made searchable. Implementing Elastic search is actually in the official documentation:
https://docs.joinmastodon.org/admin/optional/elasticsearch/

There is no need to make a statement about anything related to the opt-out flag, because the whole feature does not concern it in any way. Im not sure if the mastodon.art admin ever asked the universeodon admin about that, there is nothing written about that.

With all my Informations which i have, the first reason looks more like a made up reason without the technical knowledge which an admin should have, with a bit of a paranoid mindset wich thinks of any other instance as potentially malicious.

By the way, in the Point of View from a Security perspective, one have to expect that everything which can be indexed, is somewhere already indexed... so the opt-out flag should be considered as a "Please respect this"-Flag but not as a "I can actually preventing indexing"-Flag. Its very important that every User of the Fediverse understands that.

---

> operating with a 'growth mindset' (https://universeodon.com/@supernovae/110368386104645921) and being more concerned with growing the instance than maintaining a healthy community (https://universeodon.com/@supernovae/110159817592715989)

Ok, lets take a look at the original post which they refer to:
>> Closed registrations is not the solution. Thanks for coming to my Ted Talk.
Tbh, this post looks more like a critic on performance and critic about other admins closing their instance. I cant interpret in this "operating with a 'growth mindset'" at all.

For the second one, we need to look at a bit more Conversation:

>> yes. My beef isn't me hating on mastodon/fediverse - just hoping we can address this concern :)
>> i much prefer defederated stuff.
>> I'm still bleeding users because they're noticing this problem is really bad... the ones that don't quit entirely just move to m.s where there is about 10x as many people they can chat with locally (and they see m.s grows at 10x the rate)
>> Where i draw the line is when people say this is a feature... I am sorry, but no way in hell can we say this is a feature ;)

>>> lol
>>> I draw the line at anyone and everyone who measures the viability of their fediverse experience in gaining or losing their numbers of followers
>>> We're not all here for the same thing, obviously
>>> I'm grateful for that

>> I didn't mention anything about followers.
>> I was talking about people on my instance.
>> I've gone from 72k at peak November twitter migration down to 13.4k since and I'm still losing people.
>> People are quitting mastodon because of these quirks...
>> But if you know of other reasons people quit or how we can get some to stick around that would be great.

How can this be interpreted as "and being more concerned with growing the instance than maintaining a healthy community"? Thats critic on Mastodon/Fediverse regarding the decentralisation and the centralisation on mastodon.social! It's about what's wrong for people and why they quit, it has nothing to do with growth, it's more about what the fediverse is missing and where the problems are...

It takes a lot of malicious energy to put that out of the context and turn the meaning behind it.

---

meeting with Meta: (https://universeodon.com/@supernovae/110521648872299829)

>> I don't see any such thing happening.
>> BTW, I'm meeting with Meta next week. Look forward to hearing where they are. 👍
>> I couldn't sit around and wait and to be honest, everyone I've been in contact with at Meta has been awesome.
>> I'm still looking forward to it all.

Well, i dont like that either... However we should consider that this meeting is in no way a commitment to work with Meta.

---

> voicing thoughts about removing the ability to for users to make reports on posts from the public timelines (paste from the official Mastodon discord:

>> would it make sense to potentially remove report post from public/local and public timelines? this could alleviate some policing and focus people towards managing their timeline and the agency they have there
not sure if that’s even possible but may be worth experimenting with

Im not sure how one should interpret this... Is it about removing report activity pub event? Is it about removing the report functionality? In anyway, this sounds like a bad idea which should nobody doing so but im pretty sure that we miss some context here... i will acknowledge that the admin has not good ideas, could be serious, could be beertalk....

---

>> and embracing Meta moving to the fediverse if it means he can make money from it and run the instance as a 'legitimate business' (https://indiepocalypse.social/@tamitha/110566562683658240)

As i already said, i dont like meta... The original Post, someone made a Screenshot, states that he looks forward to what happens when P92 joins... i see that as less of an embracing and more of a we will see what happens with the defense that maybe once an instance administrator can live from running an instance... Also i dont like that mindset, please look at gargron, hes the best example for such a situation.

---

So lets summarize... Certain resons can only be made if you have malicious mindset, certain resons should concern people, since it could end up badly... But as long as nothing bad happend regarding those reasons, i cant support the mastodon.art admin claims at all.

Actually its somewhat the opposide, if i read the statement from the universeodon admin about the mastodon.art admin (https://mastodon.art/@welshpixie/110624074405406421) i can relate to it. It looks like the mastodon.art admin dont really care about their community harming other admins and dont have a certain responsibility with the range which the posts and blogs actually do have. In addition i dont like subposting instead of having a proper discussion... its far away from resolving a conflict how a admin actualy should do.

After all, keep in mind that there might be a double standard above the whole conflict... Although I have no proof, i expect gargron was in the meeting of meta too. Mastodon.social / Gargron acts since years like its the central hub for everything, acts intransparent all the time, doesnt care much about the other part of the network and its values. So the whole Meta thing will proof if certain admins will have a double standard and dont block mastodon.social either... Keep that in mind.

So after everything, i would like to hear if that changes something on the situation or if i got something wrong or if there is additional Information which i should see.