Hugo Hacker News

Mastodon now a non-profit organisation

codesections 2021-08-17 09:07:14 +0000 UTC [ - ]

> I want Mastodon to have more resources for things like hiring extra developers, UX designers, developing official apps and so on, and I want there to be a clear boundary between fundraising for that cause and my personal income.

This is an important step, and one that I'd love to see more FOSS projects take

edoceo 2021-08-17 14:07:24 +0000 UTC [ - ]

In USA it's pretty difficult to get a NFP (501c3) created around just code. One needs to have other things in place, community, grand goals, etc. I wish it was easier too but US-IRS has put additional scrutiny.

If any lawyers on here have a speciality on this I'm looking for help.

aendruk 2021-08-17 15:55:29 +0000 UTC [ - ]

Software Freedom Conservancy is a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit organization that […] provides a non-profit home and infrastructure for FLOSS projects.

https://sfconservancy.org/

codesections 2021-08-17 14:42:20 +0000 UTC [ - ]

> In USA it's pretty difficult to get a NFP (501c3) created around just code.

Yeah, I know, and that does suck. It's varied a bit over time with various IRS administrations, though, so maybe it'll get better.

(I am a lawyer, but I don't have an active practice since I became a programmer, so I'm not someone who can help. But good luck!)

lvxferre 2021-08-17 09:57:28 +0000 UTC [ - ]

For those who don't know: Mastodon is like Twitter, except decentralised and open source. Becoming a gGmbH means Eugen is seeking to expand it further.

streamofdigits 2021-08-17 10:36:09 +0000 UTC [ - ]

I wonder if all the hoopla is because mastodon / the fediverse are finally receiving some (deserved) traction? The accounts count does not seem to show a new regime (https://the-federation.info/) but maybe there are more reliable indicators?

In any case, sorting out conflicts of interest, business models, competing visions etc about the fediverse is a task that is still almost 100% for the future, as being niche and unknown does not put much pressure.

The issue of a "local or global timeline" is imho but the thin edge of a wedge: the current open source fediverse projects largely emulate the surveillance platforms (indiscriminately copying the good and the bad). That is extremely limiting and ultimately self-defeating. The open source fediverse can, must (and most likely in due course will) redefine the meaning of social platforms so as to undo the damage done by the first generations. Godspeed

riffic 2021-08-17 22:30:37 +0000 UTC [ - ]

quick, give me an accurate count of the number of email addresses provisioned worldwide.

You'll never be able to accurately measure the federated social web unfortunately, just due to how it works (and how statistics can be inflated).

indigochill 2021-08-17 13:58:47 +0000 UTC [ - ]

Isn't (one of) the point of federation to limit the scope of surveillance? e.g. My host knows everything about me, but hosts it peers with only know that I'm indigochill@myhost, essentially the same as email.

streamofdigits 2021-08-17 15:28:27 +0000 UTC [ - ]

there are so many configurations with different "information leakage" profiles / preferences: from self-hosting to mass instances, from pseudonymous accounts to verified / public identities etc. One of the strong points of the fediverse would be to enable and organize that multitude of options under uniform protocols that do not force anybody to particular architectures...

proactivesvcs 2021-08-17 13:07:44 +0000 UTC [ - ]

Glad to see this important step in securing the future of software that is more than just code.

Having been a member of the Fosstodon instance https://www.fosstodon.org/ for six months I expect that many HNers may find it an interesting and engaging instance. It's centred around free/open source software and similar services and is fully of friendly, witty and knowledgeable folk.

bovermyer 2021-08-17 14:11:16 +0000 UTC [ - ]

I applied to join Fosstodon based on your comment.

icy 2021-08-17 15:24:51 +0000 UTC [ - ]

Fosstodon, despite the name, is run by people who don't actually use free software. It's pretty funny.

proactivesvcs 2021-08-17 15:33:33 +0000 UTC [ - ]

You'll also find that users of the instance don't all run entirely free software and yet it's still a relevant place to congregate and discuss topics like "why this open source project didn't work for me", "why this open source project was a great alternative to closed-source offerings" and all of the subtleties in-between. My experience of most of these conversations is that few people try to gatekeep or provide vapid criticism of people who aren't fanatical purists.

coopermatt137 2021-08-19 11:58:11 +0000 UTC [ - ]

You'll find that most community members (including the staff) come from a wide/diverse background. Unlike some other groups that have more of a "FOSS or else" atmosphere, Fosstodon has members (and staff) that are hobbyists to extremists to pragmatics and everything in between. It's really a great place to discuss and support the FOSS movement without being chastised if you're not "all in".

input_sh 2021-08-17 09:06:15 +0000 UTC [ - ]

That's pretty cool (and also pretty ridiculous that it took 8 months). I'm kinda confused by the last part:

> Since both Patreon and our custom sponsorship platform are based around rewards to patrons/sponsors, they cannot be classified as donations, so there are no changes to how those are taxed.

So when German non-profits want to hand out merch in exchange for a specific donation amount, non-profit has to pay for-profit taxes on that?

codesections 2021-08-17 09:18:09 +0000 UTC [ - ]

> So when German non-profits want to hand out merch in exchange for a specific donation amount, non-profit has to pay for-profit taxes on that?

No, I think what he's saying is that it's not a tax-deductible donation for the patrons. (Which is actually more-or-less law in the US too, unless the reward is worth vastly less than the donation[0])

[0] https://www.nolo.com/legal-update/irs-changes-thank-you-gift...

TeMPOraL 2021-08-17 10:07:03 +0000 UTC [ - ]

That would be my default assumption. Back when I was running a non-profit in Poland, this was the assumption we've made when evaluating options like Patreon - that we'll account for it as income (I don't know the actual interpretation because I've stepped down before the foundation started using such services).

On a related note - also in terms of Polish tax laws (which are bound to be more similar to German than e.g. US would be) - I recently talked about this with a tax advisor, in context of individuals funding OSS work via Patreon and other donation schemes; their answer was that it's a bit case-by-case, depending on your reward structure. If the donors are getting direct value back for their donations, it'll be seen as you selling those rewards (and/or performing a service), which will obligate you to start an actual business. The safe way to do it is to not give anything in return, except maybe for a trinket that's not commensurate to the value of donation.

Archelaos 2021-08-17 11:05:16 +0000 UTC [ - ]

To qualify as a donation under German tax law, a donation needs to be voluntary (freiwillig) and altruistic (uneigennützig).[1] Where exactly the boundary between altruism and personal benefit lies would have to be judged by the courts in each individual case. For example, engraving the name of a donor on an altar, naming her in intercessions and inviting her to a dedication ceremony was interpreted as an "outflow of charitable funds" (Ausfluss der gemeinnützigen Mittelvergabe) and entitled to a tax deduction.[2]

[1] For more details see the following ruling of Germany's Federal Fiscal Court: https://www.bundesfinanzhof.de/de/entscheidung/entscheidunge... (in German).

[2] Cf. this ruling of Germany's Federal Fiscal Court: https://www.bundesfinanzhof.de/de/entscheidung/entscheidunge... (in German).

southerntofu 2021-08-17 09:19:00 +0000 UTC [ - ]

> So when German non-profits want to hand out merch in exchange for a specific donation amount, non-profit has to pay for-profit taxes on that?

I don't know about german regulations specifically, but based on my experience in other legal systems and my understanding of the announcement, i believe it means that because "patreon and our custom sponsorship platform" aim to reward individuals, they cannot be considered donations for the non-profit.

A non-profit may employ/contract people for specific tasks aligned with its goals, but rewarding people outside of such specific contract is closer to a "shareholder" model and incompatible with non-profit regulations. Of course, contributors to a non-profit may setup donation systems to pay their own bills, but that must not be advertised as donations "to the non-profit" (because that would be a lie), and they have to declare/pay taxes on that.

2021-08-17 09:11:40 +0000 UTC [ - ]

southerntofu 2021-08-17 09:54:42 +0000 UTC [ - ]

Related discussion: there was recently some move within the community to try and topple the current maintainer. That calls was based on technical/UX disagreements (regarding the local timeline) and on the maintainer allegedly having connection to a surveillance project called Eunomia: https://seedy.xyz/posts/0005-open-letter/

I am not a member of the Mastodon community and i have no clue to the veracity of these statements, but i believe they're worth considering in the topic of Mastodon changing governance model.

swiley 2021-08-17 12:01:32 +0000 UTC [ - ]

>currently

I've been on and off Mastodon since 2016 and there is always tumblr-style drama about how Eugen is a dictator for not doing <whatever> with everyone's instance.

southerntofu 2021-08-18 09:09:18 +0000 UTC [ - ]

Yeah that's what i assumed also, which is why i didn't suggest that the maintainer is actually malevolent in my parent comment.

Also, to be fair, if the European Commission is funding a large-scale surveillance program for decentralized social media, i'm glad some of that money is actually going to free-software maintainers to improve the ecosystem, and not all of it into the wrong pockets (as is usually the case).

riffic 2021-08-17 22:37:48 +0000 UTC [ - ]

the "open letter" against Eugen Rochko is a load of garbage and he doesn't owe anyone an absolute thing. He created the software, he's the BDFL*, and can do whatever he wants with it now.

My thought is there's nothing stopping this letter's author from developing either a fork or their own fedi/AP compliant software.

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benevolent_dictator_for_life

stjohnswarts 2021-08-18 04:06:03 +0000 UTC [ - ]

Isn't that the whole point? Seems like these people don't understand open source and they want to take over his "baby" rather than going out and making their on even though they can clone his in under a minute and change it to their liking and own sphere of influence.

user-the-name 2021-08-17 10:01:02 +0000 UTC [ - ]

Complete and utter conspiracy theorist bullshit, basically.

southerntofu 2021-08-17 10:12:31 +0000 UTC [ - ]

Do you care to elaborate for those people like me who don't have detailed knowledge of the Eunomia project? The official project page features wording that may lead a privacy-conscious person to raise eyebrows: https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/825171

user-the-name 2021-08-17 10:46:37 +0000 UTC [ - ]

I can not see a single thing on there that would raise any eyebrows.

southerntofu 2021-08-17 11:08:52 +0000 UTC [ - ]

> determine whether information they come across online is trustworthy or not

Who gets to determine what is trustworthy or not? Is it a central authority, or a WoT? The former is a very dangerous tool of social control, the latter does not usually address concerns of misinformation, as the WoT forms information bubbles with their confirmation biases.

> the project will allow users to vote on content trustworthiness. The number of votes appears as an indicator that may assist others in assessing trustworthiness

How are these votes stored? Are they part of the ActivityPub protocol, or a third-party centralized layer, or some kind of blockchain/DHT? Do you get to see the votes of your contacts, or the overall votes? How do you prevent misinformation campaign to try and hijack the votes? If they are stored in a WoT/blockchain, what kind of measures can you take to protect the social graph?

More from the website:

> a unique peer-to-peer and blockchain infrastructure

> EUNOMIA users can see the modifications of online information in between different users' posts, in an information cascade

> This may include indicators of bot activity, such as the ratio of followers to following

I don't know about you, but these sentences make me raise eyebrows.

q3k 2021-08-17 12:56:11 +0000 UTC [ - ]

> Who gets to determine what is trustworthy or not?

> How are these votes stored?

From what I can tell, this is literally a research project attempting to answer these questions. Look at the results tab, then under 'Demonstrators, pilots, prototypes' to see what they have come up with so far.

southerntofu 2021-08-18 09:05:24 +0000 UTC [ - ]

Yes, i understand that's a research project. I'm just skeptical of a publicly-funded software research project with millions of euros of funding (most researchers i know don't have access budgets like that) and with seemingly some ties to the surveillance/military apparatus.

Also i did some digging, and despite a paywall and some articles without links at all, their publications raise more questions than they answer about the actual trust/governance model and privacy implications (see my other comments quoting some bits).

Moreover, the sentiment/subjectivity analysis via ML leaves me dubious. I have a hard time believing AI can understand human discourse and/or help solve human problems, see also James Mickens USENIX talk "Why do keynote speakers keep suggesting we can improve security?"

Finally, let me put on my paranoid hat: if i were to build a large-scale surveillance network to expose the social graph and flow of information (think XKEYSCORE) for decentralized social media, it would look a lot like EUNOMIA! On the contrary, if i were to build a reputation protocole for decentralized social media, it would be much simpler than the EUNOMIA project, and would probably be based on some kind of Web of Trust / Fog of Trust (since it's aimed at classifying/auditing public data, where the social graph is already, at least partially, exposed).

user-the-name 2021-08-17 13:28:22 +0000 UTC [ - ]

You are knee-jerk reacting to keywords you have been taught to hate, instead of actually reading and comprehending what is being said.

You need to work on that, first of all.

southerntofu 2021-08-18 08:58:02 +0000 UTC [ - ]

> You are knee-jerk reacting to keywords you have been taught to hate

Quite the contrary, my french culture and education has taught me to have great respect for authority and for startup nation bullshit newspeak. But since then, i have developed some form of critical thinking.

> You need to work on that, first of all.

I tried. In their publications section, out of 7 items, there are: 2 that don't have a link; 1 about text/image similarity analysis; 1 about sentiment analysis; 1 about situated knowledge and the "user-researcher"; 1 that's behind a paywall (the one describing the EUNOMIA project); 1 that's not even a scientific paper but an "information hygiene" guide

In their "Deliverables" section we find more information. I find it strange that documents are labeled "Dissemination Level: Public", or "Type of deliverable PUBLIC" which suggests acquaintance with the surveillance/military industrial complex, as originally exposed in the critique linked in the article i was mentioning: https://hub.libranet.de/wiki/paulfree14/The(20)critical(20)E...

From these documents, a few quotes which may raise eyebrows:

- the [blockchain] framework offers embedded mechanisms for preserving privacy with the use of digital signatures and cryptographic hashes

- each information element that it is stored in the P2P distributed file storage a specific token will be generated by the Storage Serve

- The AAA Server is responsible for the authentication, authorization and accounting. Any entity that wishes to connect to the EUNOMIA infrastructure needs to communicate with this server.

- The Discovery Server provides means to allow the discovery of other services and corresponding metadata, including their public keys

- deleted posts will be removed from associated cascades, P2P databases and the EUNOMIA Blockchain ledger

p4bl0 2021-08-17 15:00:17 +0000 UTC [ - ]

I really wonder how Bluesky [1] (Twitter's project of project to build a decentralized social media protocol) will take ActivityPub and especially Mastodon into account… Both the W3C and RetroShare have reacted to the news on Twitter [2] but are totally ignored so far.

[1] https://blueskyweb.org/

[2] https://twitter.com/jack/status/1204766078468911106

riffic 2021-08-17 22:34:23 +0000 UTC [ - ]

Until someone from the Bluesky leadership team officially stands up their own AP-speaking site, I wouldn't expect them to commit to anything.

On the other hand, they've been quick to build a community around a proprietary/closed/centralized service (Discord).

Bare minimum would be to stand up a WP site with the ActivityPub Plugin for feeding back their statuses to the existing standards-based social web.

crossroadsguy 2021-08-17 16:14:34 +0000 UTC [ - ]

A wild guess would be that he is trying to remake a centralised decentralised Twitter. I think he just wants to keep one hand in somewhere that can be spun as something else when Twitter will start being unbearable if it hasn’t already. Something like the Banks first dissing crypto and now lining up to make “their own crypto”.

I mean who knows. But he not even acknowledging ActivityPub in any of those N insipid tweets, even after being reminded by others, says volumes about his intentions.

andrewmcwatters 2021-08-17 15:54:50 +0000 UTC [ - ]

Mastodon is an ActivityPub implementation, right? So does that mean Mastodon can interact with other AP implementations? Or do they add some additional stuff that doesn’t interop?

okennedy 2021-08-17 16:07:31 +0000 UTC [ - ]

It can and does. e.g., a Mastodon account can subscribe to one on PeerTube.

proactivesvcs 2021-08-17 16:35:23 +0000 UTC [ - ]

Yes. I subscribe to a few write.as blogs and Pixelfed accounts from my Mastodon account.

oytis 2021-08-17 15:07:28 +0000 UTC [ - ]

Is it really complete list of communities available through Mastodon or is there more? Looks pretty tiny so far.

proactivesvcs 2021-08-17 18:14:50 +0000 UTC [ - ]

There's also https://instances.social/ and https://fediverse.party/en/mastodon

Grustaf 2021-08-17 16:41:05 +0000 UTC [ - ]

I suppose it’s a moot point?

Ellis658 2021-08-17 11:33:53 +0000 UTC [ - ]

This is a great post. I like this topic. I found many interesting things from this site. Thanks for posting this again.........https://www.mybalancenow.today/

nsizx 2021-08-17 08:43:29 +0000 UTC [ - ]

Funny that someone would take an alternative to Twitter and incorporate it in the western country that restricts speech the most.

mattlutze 2021-08-17 08:52:19 +0000 UTC [ - ]

In practice the content that can be challenged under NetzDG is scoped and focused on hate speech and terrorism. While news outlets originally latched onto the "they crush free speech" soundbite, it's really a law to acknowledge the responsibility of the publishing platform for what they're bringing to the world.

D9t7r5wLZD9dYc 2021-08-17 08:53:23 +0000 UTC [ - ]

translation: You agree there is no freedom of speech in Germany.

nsizx 2021-08-17 08:54:50 +0000 UTC [ - ]

Hate speech is free speech.

detaro 2021-08-17 08:56:22 +0000 UTC [ - ]

What gives you the impression that "maximized free speech" is the goal of Mastodon?

Vinnl 2021-08-17 09:26:31 +0000 UTC [ - ]

And as a hint about whether that is a goal, take a look at Mastodon's instance picker [1], which says:

> We only list communities that are committed to active moderation against racism, sexism and transphobia.

[1] https://joinmastodon.org/communities

snthd 2021-08-17 09:59:32 +0000 UTC [ - ]

https://blog.joinmastodon.org/2019/07/statement-on-gabs-fork... is more explicit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance might be relevant to any discussion of "free speech".

asutekku 2021-08-17 09:53:39 +0000 UTC [ - ]

That’s just basic human decency right there.

user-the-name 2021-08-17 10:02:37 +0000 UTC [ - ]

You will find that a lot of people crying about free speech do not place much value on basic human decency.

FeepingCreature 2021-08-17 11:38:43 +0000 UTC [ - ]

You are correct - as a person who cares deeply about free speech, I certainly place less value on basic decency.

To my mind, the correct response to violations of decency is giving people strong tools to screen and filter out content they don't like. The wrong response is centralized enforcement. Inasmuch as centralized enforcement would be better at enforcing "basic decency", I will confirm that I place its priority at a lower level than avoiding centralized enforcement.

I hold this view because in my opinion, I am far more likely to be harmed by attempts to enforce some unilateral definition of "basic decency" than the very indecency they aim to prevent. (I believe this is called the "paradox of tolerance", though few know it in that formulation.)

wizzwizz4 2021-08-17 13:23:34 +0000 UTC [ - ]

Then you'll like the Fediverse, then. (Though the tools aren't particularly good, yet… perhaps you could help?)

FeepingCreature 2021-08-18 04:21:42 +0000 UTC [ - ]

Not sure - I think federation and defederation is the wrong approach. I think a network should decouple routing and moderation, and make both independently subscribable.

wizzwizz4 2021-08-18 08:44:42 +0000 UTC [ - ]

It does, for the most part! Defederation is the last resort, when you've got an instance that nobody wants to deal with (e.g. the people there are tracking down and harassing your users, and you want them to “win” and therefore stop). User-level moderation tools are much more common, though they're currently a bit lacking.

legostormtroopr 2021-08-17 10:24:49 +0000 UTC [ - ]

This is a really bad faith comment

user-the-name 2021-08-17 10:45:21 +0000 UTC [ - ]

Why? "Active moderation against racism, sexism and transphobia" is, indeed, just basic human decency.

And people keep saying, over and over and over, that doing this is against "freedom of speech".

stjohnswarts 2021-08-18 04:09:22 +0000 UTC [ - ]

Exactly there is nothing stopping them from taking mastodon source code and making their own little hate parade off in another niche of the internet. Basically "your rights end at the tip of your nose" when it comes to what I want on my own network.

nsizx 2021-08-17 11:01:05 +0000 UTC [ - ]

It is, actually. Once you restrict what others can say there's no freedom of speech anymore. It's like China saying you can't talk about the regime - I'm sure they consider that "basic human decency" as well.

dgb23 2021-08-17 11:29:50 +0000 UTC [ - ]

It's not a restriction of freedom of speech. This is just exercising freedom of association.

"If you're an asshole, I won't broadcast your stuff."

People are still free to be assholes, but the platform is free to not associate themselves with the assholes.

Very simple.

Kye 2021-08-17 11:50:22 +0000 UTC [ - ]

It's even open source. Anyone who disagrees with the project's listing policy can make their own list.

https://source.joinmastodon.org/mastodon/joinmastodon

M2Ys4U 2021-08-17 11:08:43 +0000 UTC [ - ]

>Once you restrict what others can say there's no freedom of speech anymore.

If you go by that definition then there is no country on Earth that has freedom of speech.

And that's a good thing because that definition is completely and utterly insane; Absolute freedom of speech would be a catastrophe.

Kaze404 2021-08-17 11:09:44 +0000 UTC [ - ]

Freedom of speech isn't freedom to be a bigot. You can say whatever you want, but that doesn't mean the rest of the world has to listen.

JadeNB 2021-08-17 13:14:53 +0000 UTC [ - ]

> Freedom of speech isn't freedom to be a bigot. You can say whatever you want, but that doesn't mean the rest of the world has to listen.

To be clear, it is freedom to be a bigot, or at least to say bigoted things, just not freedom to have anyone else listen to those things (or, as hopefully goes without saying, for any action based on those bigoted things that goes beyond words).

wizzwizz4 2021-08-17 13:26:16 +0000 UTC [ - ]

> just not freedom to have anyone else listen to those things

This implies freedom to remember you say bigoted things and proactively avoid you.

JadeNB 2021-08-17 14:43:28 +0000 UTC [ - ]

> This implies freedom to remember you say bigoted things and proactively avoid you.

Certainly. Freedom of speech, not freedom from consequences, as they say.

dane-pgp 2021-08-17 20:37:17 +0000 UTC [ - ]

“There is freedom of speech, but I cannot guarantee freedom after speech.”

― Idi Amin

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/9082497-there-is-freedom-of...

JadeNB 2021-08-17 22:28:09 +0000 UTC [ - ]

That's not the company into which I'd prefer to be lumped as a believer in free speech with consequences. I'm not sure whether or not that was your point ….

dane-pgp 2021-08-18 02:01:34 +0000 UTC [ - ]

I'm saying that unless you're really careful to specify what sort of "consequences" you're talking about, it's hard to separate your beliefs from his.

JadeNB 2021-08-18 02:21:20 +0000 UTC [ - ]

> I'm saying that unless you're really careful to specify what sort of "consequences" you're talking about, it's hard to separate your beliefs from his.

Since you refer to them as "my beliefs", I assume that yours are different. With no sarcasm, what are your beliefs? If you argue against the claim that freedom of speech does not entail freedom from consequences, is your position that freedom of speech should come with freedom from consequences? Surely it's not hard to imagine how that, too, can be a dangerous position to take.

FeepingCreature 2021-08-18 04:19:08 +0000 UTC [ - ]

Different poster, but I believe that freedom of speech not just does, but must come with freedom from consequences to be at all meaningful. Of course, there is nowhere that actually has that level of freedom of speech, but seen as a spectrum it makes sense.

Freedom of speech is freedom from consequences:

- of government reprisals

- of corporate reprisals

- of criminal reprisals

- of employment risks

- of relationship risks.

Pick and choose which matter to you. To me, freedom of speech applies to all, but other rights such as freedom of association sometimes override it. (And sometimes not.)

shadowgovt 2021-08-18 12:17:38 +0000 UTC [ - ]

The only speech that has no impact on that entire spectrum of human interaction is things never said.

I don't think people generally want a lack of response to their speech (if they did, they're saying nothing... Just making babbling noises best ignored). People want freedom from negative consequences. In short, people want to eat their cake and have their cake.

This is why every country ends up with laws that carve out some spectrum of consequences as inappropriate, but those laws are not all-encompassing... It is functionally impossible to eliminate all the consequences you've listed from the table while still giving listeners freedom to be their own independent agents and modify their behavior in reaction to speech. In particular, the last category you listed is a huge infringement on personal liberty of generally applied... I assume you don't expect a person in a committed relationship, hearing their partner say "I hate everything about my partner and I wish we'd never met," to not modify or end the relationship? Any legal infringement on their right to do so is an obvious curtailment of their rights.

In short, sometimes freedom of speech and freedom of association collide. One is a freedom of the speaker, the other freedom of the listener.

JadeNB 2021-08-18 17:05:52 +0000 UTC [ - ]

> Freedom of speech is freedom from consequences: … of relationship risks.

Wait, seriously? If I choose whether to have a relationship with someone based on the things they say, then you regard that as an infringement on their freedom of speech? You do later say:

> … other rights such as freedom of association sometimes override it. (And sometimes not.)

… but I don't really understand this as a statement of position. It seems to be saying that freedom of speech should not have consequences, except when it does, except when it doesn't, and I wind up not really sure what position is being espoused.

FeepingCreature 2021-08-19 05:10:35 +0000 UTC [ - ]

I'm saying freedom of speech should not have unwanted consequences, and in that sense it cuts far beyond what anyone considers reasonable. However, that doesn't make the definition wrong; it just means we better get comfortable with balancing conflicting interests.

stjohnswarts 2021-08-18 04:11:16 +0000 UTC [ - ]

Exactly it's why I send money to ACLU and EFF. I'll spend money to help defend your right to say what you want, but I'll be damned if I have to listen to your BS on my own time. I'm just there to stop the government from outlawing freedom of speech.

sneak 2021-08-17 11:27:04 +0000 UTC [ - ]

Human decency involves not telling other adults what they are allowed to peaceably publish or read.

I find imposing censorship on others a denial of their basic rights to free expression, and is itself an indecent act.

swiley 2021-08-17 11:55:16 +0000 UTC [ - ]

You'll note quoto.org is at the top of the technology oriented instance list. I know the admin to some degree (he followed me almost immediately after I joined) and while he won't tolerate you using his instance to harass people he's vocally tolerant of good faith arguments in favor of unpopular ideas and won't prevent you from following any account publishing legal content.

While free speech is not a goal of Mastodon the technology is very conducive to it and many of the admins are reasonable people.

[1]https://joinmastodon.org/communities/tech

sneak 2021-08-17 12:59:05 +0000 UTC [ - ]

That's nice to hear. A lot of instance admins will defederate other instances based only on rumor or suspicion of wrongthink, preventing all of their users from following accounts on those instances even if they want to. This has happened to my single user instance simply based on my political beliefs (primarily the right to free peaceful expression, you'd think that would be less controversial), not any content actually posted.

It's a big problem in the fediverse, because one has to be a little bit of an activist in the first place to exit twitter, and these days popular activism and censorship overlap a lot.

swiley 2021-08-17 13:11:30 +0000 UTC [ - ]

I remember seeing a defederation list a while ago that was supposedly for "alt-right/nazi" instances.

It of course contained qoto and fosstodon due to their being pro free speech.

Kye 2021-08-17 11:29:14 +0000 UTC [ - ]

>> "Human decency involves not telling other adults what they are allowed to peaceably publish or read."

So you agree the Mastodon project should be able to decide not to publish certain instances in the list it maintains. Cool.

Freedom is not meaningful without the freedom to not do something. If they're compelled to publish things they don't agree with, then they don't really have free speech.

sneak 2021-08-17 11:55:23 +0000 UTC [ - ]

Yes, I do. I also believe in my right to criticize them for appointing themselves censors.

This need to paternalistically protect other adults from online content "for their own good" is authoritarian and rude and I hope it goes out of fashion right soon.

It's extra bothersome when instance admins (unrelated to the mastodon project) decide for their users what they should be allowed to read.

Imagine if your email service decided you couldn't send or receive email to certain domains they decided were "bad people".

cortesoft 2021-08-17 15:30:37 +0000 UTC [ - ]

> Imagine if your email service decided you couldn't send or receive email to certain domains they decided were "bad people".

Almost every email provider does something like this - it is called a spam filter. If email of a certain type comes in, it doesn’t go into your inbox. Is that censorship?

Sure, you can go into your spam folder and see it, just like mastodon users can connect to an instance not listed on the main mastodon list.

Curating content is not a sin.

novok 2021-08-17 17:37:59 +0000 UTC [ - ]

You can turn off your spam filter if you want to, you can't turn off the defederation disconnect. One is opt-in curation, the other is not. I hope we get smart opt-in curation on a user by user basis soon, and you could subscribe to certain curators as you want.

cortesoft 2021-08-17 18:55:03 +0000 UTC [ - ]

How is spam filtering an opt-in curation? I never enabled it on my gmail account, it was just on.

Can Mastodon servers not choose to federate with other servers outside the central Mastodon service?

FeepingCreature 2021-08-18 04:20:38 +0000 UTC [ - ]

I wish I could turn my Yahoo spam filter off.

smhost 2021-08-17 08:48:09 +0000 UTC [ - ]

Why is that funny? It's supposed to be a substitute, not something entirely different altogether.

qmmmur 2021-08-17 08:51:31 +0000 UTC [ - ]

Restricted the most? What?

zo1 2021-08-17 09:54:34 +0000 UTC [ - ]

Not OP. It's kinda hard to find examples at this point, and I don't feel too inclined to trawl through pages and pages of google results before finding what appears to be SEO-demoted results.

Some examples I did find:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/20/world/europe/germany-36-a...

And some other relevant links from Wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_Germany

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_Germany

qmmmur 2021-08-17 22:35:54 +0000 UTC [ - ]

Do you like hate speech or something?

D9t7r5wLZD9dYc 2021-08-17 08:51:21 +0000 UTC [ - ]

Exactly, there are many examples of people in Germany being arrested at gun point for opening their mouth and speaking. Dumb move. USA and Japan are the only logical options for this entity setup.

wintermutestwin 2021-08-17 14:29:17 +0000 UTC [ - ]

This is the way we defeat stalker capitalists who are trading trinkets to the natives for land. The core functionality of FaceCrook, Twatter and Instaglam doesn't require $billions. The data we pay for these services is worth so much more that the exchange is essentially theft.

I have no use for a Twatter replacement, but when a non-profit (or benefit corporation) starts up a viable FaceCrook replacement, I will gladly donate.

the_jeremy 2021-08-17 18:18:23 +0000 UTC [ - ]

Facebook makes ~$20 off your data each year (https://www.thegoodestate.com/facebook-arpu/). You might believe your data is worth more than that, but no one is willing to pay more for it.

Regardless, name calling will not engender support for your position, even for people who already have similar ideals.

wintermutestwin 2021-08-17 19:29:17 +0000 UTC [ - ]

1. In a capitalist society, I should be able to name the price for something that belongs to me.

2. FaceCrook still has my data after they sell it. Part of their valuation is based on the future value of all the data they have accumulated.

>name calling will not engender support for your position

I find that humor is an effective counter to power. These corporations that are selling the masses trinkets for something of true value while wasting the talents of our "best and brightest" on stalkertech deserve ridicule. Why should I afford these petty crooks any respect?

svrourke 2021-08-17 19:40:25 +0000 UTC [ - ]

1. In a capitalist society price is dictated by supply/demand

I would expect Facebook's valuation is less about knowing you like dogs and more on the fact that their advertising system allows people to show dog teeshirts directly to people who like dogs

I'm surprised the average user's data is worth even $20/year

wintermutestwin 2021-08-17 19:51:17 +0000 UTC [ - ]

You are severely underestimating (or understating) the power of big data.

You really think their stalkertech amounts to: user#=1337, likes=dogs???

svrourke 2021-08-17 20:20:01 +0000 UTC [ - ]

no but back to the economic argument the supply is so significant that no one person's data is worth jack unless they're a politician or something like that. Individually its basically worthless.

wintermutestwin 2021-08-17 20:51:31 +0000 UTC [ - ]

Shouldn't I be allowed to set the price for my data? Frankly, I don't want to sell it at all, so these companies are essentially engaging in theft (ergo "FaceCrook"). Due to their network effect monopoly (and the blatant failings of our govt to effectively enforce anti-trust laws and to generally protect consumers from corporate abuse), I am forced to use their platform. Even if I didn't, they would still be stealing my data.

fortyrod 2021-08-17 12:49:33 +0000 UTC [ - ]

This title needs to be disambiguated. I had assumed that most musicians, and especially prog metal bands, were non-profit by default. I was curious why that had to be made explicit!

fortyrod 2021-08-17 12:59:06 +0000 UTC [ - ]

lol. No, seriously. I thought it was about a band. sigh.

kaidon 2021-08-17 14:46:32 +0000 UTC [ - ]

Hey! So did I! I had hard that one of the members had become sick or something along those lines and figured they were pivoting to an NPO!