Notices by Mike Masnick ✅ (mmasnick@mastodon.social)

@mildpeach Huh? I have thousands of posts here, and the "fundraiser" is for Techdirt, which I've been running for 27 years, and where I've written over 53,000 articles. What are you even mad about?

RE: https://mastodon.social/@glynmoody/115504604469274492

I'm reposting this, but also testing the quote posting...

@ricci @folkerschamel @mastodonmigration @mmasnick.bsky.social fair enough, but then he is comparing apples to oranges. i was trying to make sure we were comparing like to like. if you just say "bluesky" then I could jus say "mastodon gmbh" and we are in the same camp. Both have some servers that they control. But they are both part of wider ecosystems. So Folker is either extremely confused or is deliberately misleading.

@ricci @mmasnick.bsky.social @mastodonmigration I think both of those are also poor measures for the underlying thing that you're trying to accomplish here. as i wrote in my original paper on this, the key is not that everyone need be on different systems, but that the alternatives exist and are easy to switch to, because that creates stronger incentives. requiring everyone to be on different servers is not a useful metric.

@ricci @mmasnick.bsky.social @mastodonmigration that's literally the main thing that people see on your site. If you don't intend for that to be the focal point, you should redesign the site.

@ricci @mastodonmigration @folkerschamel @mmasnick.bsky.social I disagree. I don't think it would be any less decentralized. Arguably, I would say it's more decentralized because it would have more users who *can* move elsewhere while remaining in touch.

@folkerschamel @ricci @mastodonmigration @mmasnick.bsky.social the thing is, multiple people have explained to you, repeatedly, that your point "b" is incorrect. ATproto/Atmosphere is NOT controlled by a single company. Why you keep repeating that lie is the part that bugs me.

@mastodonmigration @mmasnick.bsky.social @ricci I am not characterizing the data at all. I am pointing out why your use of it is meaningless.

@mastodonmigration @folkerschamel @mmasnick.bsky.social @ricci No @ricci is making a different (totally valid!) point. I am saying IF he included Threads, would you then say that Mastodon is less decentralized?

That's the only question I am asking. If your answer is yes, I would be confused. If your answer is no, you are admitting that this is not a measure of decentralization.

Which is it?

@folkerschamel @mastodonmigration @mmasnick.bsky.social you are lying. Stop doing so. The Atmosphere is not centralized, is not controlled by a single company any more than Meta controls the fediverse.

I don't understand why you keep lying. It's shameful behavior and you should stop.

@mastodonmigration @folkerschamel @mmasnick.bsky.social the only one misrepresenting stuff is you, unfortunately. Bluesky has done a ton of stuff to enable actual decentralization, all of which we're starting to see come into effect as we speak and all you guys do is lie about it.

But you still ignore my point. If we (properly) counted Threads as part of the fediverse, would that make the fediverse less decentralized?

Answer please.

@mastodonmigration @folkerschamel @mmasnick.bsky.social I just saw this thanks to folker posting it (misleadingly) on Bluesky. As I've said repeatedly, that chart is not only meaningless, but it's misleading. If it included Threads on the AP side, then Mastodon would look way way worse. But that's silly. If it counted Threads would that suddenly make Mastodon less decentralized? Of course not. That's why that chart is completely meaningless.

@skippy @choobs @Gustodon yup. and to be clear: i totally respect those who don't find the tradeoffs acceptable and choose not to use the service. i think that this version of the arbitration setup, though, is a step forward compared to most services who try to force absolutely every dispute into a lopsided arbitration. but always open to hearing other viewpoints.

@skippy @choobs @Gustodon here's what I'll say: there are always a ton of trade-offs to every approach, and unlike almost every other site (including the main mastodon instance!) the new terms explicitly carve out nearly all disputes from binding arbitration leaving it to the user to decide which approach they prefer while arbitration (with a fairer procedure for selecting an arbiter) being an option they *can* choose, but are not forced into. Read i, ii, and iii together...

@rabble @wjmaggos @onthemedia @blaine and to be clear at no time did I, or would I, have ever suggested I came up with the idea. The point of the paper was directly to remind more people of the existence of such things, and how it made sense as a path forward.

@bontchev @davidbcohen @briankrebs the 1st amendment has long been interpreted to mean "the gov't cannot punish you for your viewpoint." That's what this is doing.

I'm not sure what's so confusing about that?

@bontchev @davidbcohen @briankrebs the rule is fairly simple: under the 1st amendment *if* the gov't creates a public space for the press, they can only limit press based on things such as room. NOT because of their speech. Here, the WH has been clear that they have blocked AP based on its speech.

Hence 1A is the issue. It's in the ruling that is linked from my article.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.277682/gov.uscourts.dcd.277682.46.0_1.pdf

Answer given: Open social web is important. ? If anyone else is here what did you think of the response?

@corvax i'm kinda amazed myself, but super happy about it. Can't wait to get the game into people's hands.

@jetton yeah. i mean the game punishes toxicity, and we do have the concept of federation/defederation in the game...