If we're being real, what we're seeing is white folks trying to recreate their own little fiefdoms based almost completely on the behaviors and methodology of the platforms we are allegedly trying to get away from.

There is a lot of bad faith and straight up incompetent efforts being put out there that want to the benefit of the doubt because the slap FOSS on the door of their project.

And that's some bullshit that needs to be called out and stomped out.


All this exasperation around making platforms safe isn't because of the level of effort, but rather that very notion that there should more effort being placed into it at all. And that's a very specific cultural behavior.

We know this because we see effort being put into everything BUT safety and giving folks better tools to handle and deal with bad actors.

That's a choice. A choice that is being made over and over again.

The fact the software is free doesn't erase intentions and posture.


i think that a social application that does not give users reasonable control over how their content is propagated and interacted with (which is a challenge in the AP ecosystem because this was never part of the design originally, because the originators of AP did not spend enough time thinking about these issues...) should not even be considered a "1.0" release.

for example, Mastodon, to this day, does not even let you say "hey, i don't trust that these servers are going to play nice with my non-public messages, so don't federate them that way."

we have seen servers that have been configured in ways that are intentionally hostile, rewriting the recipient lists so that they are always as:Public, so it should be obvious that the admin should be able to declare those servers as untrustworthy. instead, Mastodon just gives you the choice between a sledgehammer (complete defederation) and something not relevant to this specific example.

evolution of the AP ecosystem to parallel safety features seen in diaspora and zot should be a shared goal of implementations, but many developers in this space see safety features as a binary: if it isn't 100% foolproof, it's not worth implementing, which is not optimal, especially given the "open world" nature of the fediverse.

@kaniini The key here is _should_ be, but it isn't not because of it's level of difficulty, but rather people just don't want to.

That's not a tech issue. That's a cultural issue. And that's the very issue that is keeping fediverse applications from being what they could be.

It seems like people just want to replicate the platforms we're getting away from so they can control their own versions of it.

Which is an assbackward way of building software.


absolutely agreed.

if we want to actually take on the proprietary platforms, we must be building technology that non-technical people can be absolutely confident in. frequently I see people encounter "gotchas" in the current AP ecosystem that are surprising to them, and then they go back to the proprietary platform they were using before.

we have to start building the software from the perspective of what typical people expect in regards to safekeeping of their data. there are many design cues we can take from diaspora and zot that will get us moving in the right direction, but we must first agree to move in that direction. AP ecosystem in general, is too focused on specific usecases instead of seeing the bigger picture.

@kaniini I don't mind AP being just a toolset that can be leveraged into application. I think it's a great protocol that can be added to whatever, so I don't mind it being agnostic. I do agree it needs to a bit more mindful about the security bits, but I think that will happen.

I will say based on the general posture that Masto displays, I don't think we'll agree on a general direction, so just have to do what we have to do.

Waiting for people acting in bad faith to come around is a mistake


AP is definitely a good foundation, we just need to document how to properly approach both AP itself as well as general design of these platforms to bring usable security to the userbase.

if we can succeed in that, then we will eventually get where we need to be.

however, i think the friction with Masto is probably going to be solved by a fork eventually. fork control only works as a strategy if you're willing to compromise with others.

@kaniini Kinda agree.

I like Masto as a foundation, I just take issue with the decisions its leadership are making.

I would take it a step further and just make a flavor that completely breaks away from Masto entirely.

Ha, of course that puts me closer to your project, but I have an affinity for Masto that I have to take to the end. I just think it has so much potential that's just being squandered.

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Social @ PV

The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!