Notices by Chris Trottier (atomicpoet@calckey.social), page 2

To me, @pixelfed@mastodon.social’s new comment controls are an incredibly big deal, and something I’ve been pleading for Fediverse developers to implement.

It was always a big oversight that, while Fediblock exists, you’ve never been able to control comment permissions. This has created unfortunate situations where, when harassment and dogpiling suddenly happen, there’s little the original poster can do about it.

Well, this will soon change.
@dansup@mastodon.social has pioneered comment controls and we can all use #Pixelfed as a model to build a safer #Fediverse.

Thank you to Pixelfed for this big step in community safety!

@fediversenews@venera.social

RE: https://mastodon.social/users/pixelfed/statuses/110610994877181313

A few developers (not just @kainoa) have reached out privately to me and said, “Adding ActivityPub integration is really hard.”

Fair enough. I know it’s not trivial. It’s hard enough trying to validate it right now.

So let me modify my view.

Once federation becomes a trivial project, all social media server software should be designed for federation.

There’s my ideals. And then there’s reality.

Personally, I prefer to live according to reality.

Last night, I said that all social media server software should be designed for federation. This is my personal belief.

However, that’s not the belief of @kainoa nor is it the official view of the #Calckey project.

I don’t speak for Calckey. My personal views are my own.

I don’t get how setting up lobby servers for the express purpose of helping people migrate from Meta is somehow “pro-Meta” when the objective is to get more people to, you know, stop using Meta.

You know what’s a pro-Meta stance? Making it harder to leave Meta.

@noondlyt@mstdn.social It’s almost as though you believe everyone who’s on Meta prefers it, and are not a part of a marginalized group. This is not the case.

Nevertheless, as an admin, I can choose who I allow onto my server.

@noondlyt@mstdn.social Human beings also have families. And jobs. And support networks. So it’s not so easy as “move away”.

In fact, I’ve been to places in the world—such as Southeast Asia—where Meta basically is the Internet. Most people there aren’t Nazis, they’re just folk trying to get by.

Now there might be an opportunity to move them off of Meta, albeit slowly, and the way to do that is by allowing them to keep in touch with friends and family.

@noondlyt@mstdn.social Sometimes it’s not a matter of trust but a matter of what they know. You and I have the confidence to go beyond walled gardens. Many people, not so much. My mom is like that. She’s on Facebook all day but she’s scared of “the Internet,” which she believes is full of hackers. She stays on Facebook not because she likes Zuckerberg but because people she knows are on there. And if people she knows are on Facebook, she’s okay with being there.

@atomicpoet I don't think Federation is really possible with secure protocols like Signal. WhatsApp apparently completed the transition in 2016 https://signal.org/blog/whatsapp-complete/

@chetwisniewski@securitycafe.ca @iameli@iame.li How to solve those problems specifically is for another conversation. Nevertheless, it is ludicrous to say that a monopoly should continue in the name of security.

Some people are saying, “Oh, if you break up WhatsApp’s monopoly on chat, it will be less secure.”

Why is a for-profit, multi-billion dollar enterprise like Meta the arbiter for security?

If WhatsApp’s security requires centralization, take it out of Meta’s hands. Given Meta’s track record with privacy, they should be the last entity protecting WhatsApp’s security.

Either way, I don’t buy the notion that a monopoly should continue in the name of security.

WhatsApp should federate or be broken up.

@chetwisniewski@securitycafe.ca @iameli@iame.li Who’s saying anything about decreasing security and privacy?

No, security and privacy are absolutely essential—but that’s no excuse for maintaining a monopoly.

@chris@omgwars.com I agree. When it comes to laws, legislation should be considered with the utmost care.

@iameli@iame.li @chetwisniewski@securitycafe.ca Yeah, and it’s tragic that for so many people, Meta is the Internet for all intents and purposes.

@chetwisniewski@securitycafe.ca @iameli@iame.li Once monopolies exist, people are no longer making decisions regarding what they use. They’re forced into using it. That’s what makes a monopoly a monopoly.

@iameli@iame.li @chetwisniewski@securitycafe.ca Exactly. I’m in favour of small Signals. One massive WhatsApp is a different kettle of fish.

@chetwisniewski@securitycafe.ca @iameli@iame.li The real zealotry is believing that monopolies should exist. Again, WhatsApp has billions of users. In certain places like Southeast Asia, you can’t even do business without a WhatsApp. That should not happen.

@iameli@iame.li @chetwisniewski@securitycafe.ca I’m personally fine with small servers that don’t federate with each other. Once it hosts 1 billion people, I call shenanigans.

If you’re using a chat server that requires absolute security, and thus can’t federate, there should be a limit on how big that chat server is allowed to be.

Is it hosting 1 billion people? Too bad, “security” shouldn’t be an excuse to extend your monopoly.

Federate or break yourself up.

The way you bust monopolies is by enforcing interoperability.

How do I know this?

Almost all successful social networks grow off the back of another.

Facebook grew through email.

YouTube grew through MySpace.

Instagram grew through Tumblr.

Never has any social network grown its network effect spontaneously. Nobody just shows up.

My standpoint is that, not only should all social software support ActivityPub, it should be required by law.

Further to that, all social software should have an account migration path towards and away from it.

No, I’m not saying all servers should federate with each other. What I am saying is that it should be impossible for any one server software to monopolize the network effect.

RE: https://cosocial.ca/users/evan/statuses/110606024253857339