@AnarchoNinaWrites Not sure from your comments if you've taken this factor into account - it's terribly confusing even for people who work with the tech - but if Jorts blocks Meta AND activates authorized fetch, that should actually keep your posts and account info away from Meta. Under those conditions, if followers on collaborator instances boost your posts, they won't federate over to Meta for data collection
@AnarchoNinaWrites Yeah, it's something of a delicate operation to ask your admin for that. I nagged the Kolektiva admins about it a couple times, and they're about to turn it on.
On the problem you described, I empathize, I've run into that myself. But it would only really work for you if it's activated on your instance.
@autistic_enby True enough, authorized fetch can't solve every problem related to staying safe on social media. What's right in front of us is the prospect of Meta conducting surveillance and data collection of the information we offer up on the fedi, which up to this point has been a relative bastion of privacy respect. Activating authorized fetch can help with that and is a step in the right direction; there will be many more to take
@rothko Yes. Here are the Democrats enthusiastically passing authoritarian censorship bills at this very moment - rather than, say, moving heaven and earth for reproductive rights
@MediaActivist@GreenRoc Oh yeah. I think that's why it's essential to understand abolition as a revolutionary project rather than a reformist one. The state can't exist without its cops, and will never relinquish them voluntarily
@tokyo_0@smallpatatas On the contrary, what we suggest is the fediverse in its natural but as yet incomplete state. Why do you think community-controlled autonomous decentralized social media is something the fediverse isn't?
@tokyo_0@smallpatatas You addressed 2 posts to @smallpatatas directly by tagging him at the top, other tags at the bottom, seemingly directly stating allow-list federation was "overkill" and that Meta "can be dealt with just like the others". Those were the comments I was addressing. I agree that we should be aiming together at the Zuckerbros
@tokyo_0@smallpatatas Respectfully, Meta is not remotely "just like the others", it is unquestionably a threat of a magnitude far beyond any other faced by the fedi. Gab didn't have a man in the ActivityPub project, or it's co-author bought over to their side. Gab didn't have $30 billion to piss away on a misfire called the Gabaverse. We're talking about an entity that has made a credible pass at privatizing the entire internet, all by itself. It will eat the fediverse for lunch if it wants to. It's an unprecedented threat and requires an unprecedented defense strategy, if we are to preserve the values of community-centered, decentralized autonomous social media
@tokyo_0@Yuvalne The answer to your question is the caracol. Here's a further elaboration. This is a longer one, but there's "Meta is coming" material at the beginning which is now redundant, so that can be skipped: https://kolektiva.social/@ophiocephalic/110980369577922721 (edit: corrected link)
tldr: Fedifams then form trust-treaties with other fedifams which ease federation out from the fam. The treaties can have their own terms, e.g. probationary or limited federation
@tokyo_0@Yuvalne That problem could be solved by the fedifam, which could actually better facilitate small-instance spinups, from within the instance alliance, than the current status quo
@tokyo_0 Was wondering about your take on this. The chatter going round these parts seems to suggest two things: 1) It's still worth it to advocate for AF, which at least lifts the low-hanging fruit higher 2) Ultimately, true safety awaits us in an allow-list based federation. What do you think? @Yuvalne
With the Zuckerberg takeover impending, there's a lot of confusion circulating about the use of user-level and instance-level blocks, and how our online expressions can be secured against Meta. Everyone who objects to their accounts being mined by the Zuckerberg entity for data collection, AI ingestion, monetization, and possible ghost-profile building needs to understand this problem. Here's information to clarify.
Neither a user-level block, or an instance-level block, will protect our posts from Meta data-mining by default on a Mastodon instance. Posts won't be delivered directly, but can be ingested by other means; if, for example, users on Meta-federated instances boost them.
However, both user and instance blocks will totally prevent post delivery in all cases IF your host instance has enabled the functionality called Authorized Fetch.
By default, Authorized Fetch is off on Mastodon instances and most haven't turned it on. If this concern is important to you, you might want to respectfully reach out to your admins and let them know. Remember that they are working hard to provide and sustain online community at no charge. It's likely they won't be very familiar with it and will need time to look into it.
Do you like my selfie? Let's build the commune!Towards a Free Fediverse beyond capitalist enclosure and the growth-at-all-costs pathology #FreeFediverse #FediPact #DefederateMetaSelfie alt-text: A friendly tree frog hangs out on a rock, while sporting a lovely hairdo comprised of two snails, one on each side of his head