Notices by Robert W. Gehl (rwg@aoir.social), page 3

@rra and I have a new, #OpenAccess article out: "Shifting your research from X to Mastodon? Here's what you need to know"

https://www.cell.com/action/showPdf?pii=S2666-3899%2823%2900323-9

This article is an opinion piece in which we argue that social scientists cannot simply port their work from X to #Mastodon or the rest of the #fediverse. There are key differences in culture, expectations of privacy, and of course topology to consider.

@commodon @academicchatter

@ntnsndr @seanlawson Looks like an awesome course, by the way!

(and also, I think you and I ought to chat soon!)

Perhaps you're distressed about the "perfect storm of disinformation" that's hitting the world now, and will only ramp up during the next US election.

Fear not!

Read my latest book (co-authored with @seanlawson) Social Engineering:

https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262543453/

You'll see that none of this is new.
(It's just far far more intense! And scary! Ok, I'm scared, too!)

@tokyo_0 @jdp23 isn’t #Pixelfed implementing content portability now?

@jdp23 true. But it's light years ahead of what we've had for the past two decades!

For me, being able to move follows/followers has been really useful.

The official published version of the article I wrote with @dzulli, "The Digital Covenant", is online and #OpenAccess:

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1369118X.2022.2147400

The paper draws on federalist political theory to talk about how Mastodon instances use codes of conduct to build out a network of shared ethical values. It's fundamental to how I'm thinking about what the #fediverse can be.

Thought experiment: #Musk announces that #X / #Twitter is adopting #ActivityPub and will federate.

How many of the instances who would federate with #Threads would federate with X? If not, what's the difference?

I'm working on a book about the #fediverse, and one thing I've done is built a timeline of key events.

I'm currently using this program (https://thetimelineproj.sourceforge.net/ -- see screenshot) to make it. It's not ideal. I'd really like to share my timeline publicly (and get feedback on it). Posting something to a website of mine would be ideal.

Can anyone recommend a way to do this, one that doesn't involve closed code?

@tchambers I should add that Gab was blocked quite extensively, and that is an achievement for certain.

But many advocates for blocking it have told me about getting a lot of flack for their position.

@tchambers Looking forward to it. What I'm talking about is that no doubt intense period, in which people debated blocking instances outright -- much as they are doing now. The counterargument to blocking an instance is a free speech argument. What interviewees have told me is that they heard that argument when they advocated for blocking Gab (and other servers).

We're repeating this now with Meta, aren't we?

@tchambers @tasket

But this isn't a new server. It already hosts some really awful accounts. This isn't a new instance that just started and is finding its feet....

Lots of folks have comments on #Meta's #Threads integrating #ActivityPub, so I thought I'd join the fun.

Latest #FOSSAcademic post: "Thoughts on Threads, or Is Mark Zuckerberg Jesus?"

https://fossacademic.tech/2023/12/16/ThoughtsThreads.html

[replies to this post will appear as comments on the blog, unless you set privacy to followers only or DM. CWs will work]

@tchambers @activitypubtestsuite Yeah, I've been watching it, actually...

I guess where I'd critique your post is the articulation of preemptive blocking and test suites -- those are two separate issues. For example, I recommend blocking Threads AND I support a strong test suite. The idea that pro-blocking people naively think that blocking is going to prevent EEE is the shortcoming of your post, I'd say.

@tchambers Ok! You and I disagree on the first bit, clearly. I can see giving many entities the benefit of the doubt vis a vis federation, but not #Meta. Block 'em now I say!

As for the second, the test suite, that's a great idea. It's the idea the SocialWG had when they made #ActivityPub and other the other standards. Making sure applications are standards-compliant via testing is very important.

@tchambers I guess the first thing I'll say is that your post is about two distinct things:

1) whether or not to preemptively block #Threads
2) preventing #EEE

Before I say more, is that fair?

Or do you see the two as the same?

Here's a totally wonky, ultranerdy piece of evidence for folks who want to argue that #Meta doesn't operate in good faith. It's based on a chapter of my book about the Dark Web (https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262038263/weaving-the-dark-web/).

A thread... 🧵

So, back in 2015, there were multiple groups creating encrypted, anonymizing networks (many of which are still in operation today): #I2P, #Tor, #GNU, #Namecoin.

They went to the #IETF to standardize how browsers would handle their special top-level domains.

(I warned you this was nerdy).

The idea here was that if a user typed domain.i2p or domain.onion into a browser, the browser would leak that request to search engines or DNS servers.

2/🧵

The various groups were working together, even though there were some socio-technical rivalries among them. For example, people representing Tor said I2P's documentation sucked. I2P thought Tor's domain name system was poorly conceived. That sort of thing.

But they all had common cause: prevent this obscure privacy problem.

Then #Meta (at that time, #Facebook) showed up.

🧵 /3

Facebook was looking into setting up their own Tor hidden service, what would eventually become facebookcorewwwi.onion (the fact that I can recall that URL is a BIG DEAL, ask me why later).

So they partnered with Tor, specifically the now infamous Jacob Appelbaum (a serial sexual abuser -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_Appelbaum#Allegations_of_sexual_misconduct)

Facebook's goal was to get IETF standardization so they could get a domain certificate for their .onion service. (Ask me why later, more nerdery).

🧵 /4

While Tor, I2P, GNU, and Namecoin were working an RFC through the IETF process, Facebook and Tor/Appelbaum broke away from the group.

Why? Because they were bigger than the rest. Facebook was too important to wait for the piddly-little anonymizing projects, like I2P.

Tor was just too popular. That was the basic argument.

They broke off their own RFC, got it approved very quickly, and facebookcorewwwi.onion went live in 2016, complete with an HTTPS certificate.

🧵 /5