Thanks, I'll include something about Hubzilla's progress ... the proof of concept Faircamp integration is interesting, do you know if anybody's following up on it?
Yeah, right now the way I think of it is that Bluesky is (conceptualy) a single big instance, connected to the rest of the ActivityPub fediverse via Bridgy Fed (which speaks both AT and ActivityPub). Bluesky's decentralized in a different way, and the broader ATmosphere (apps that use AT protocol) is growing as well, but it deosn't really have the same concept of instance.
Agreed that there's a difference between funding and other kinds of engagement -- and a difference between initial funding to get them off the ground. Right now it's not exactly clear what funding Meta's contributed and what the longer-term plans are. One of the other polls in the thread was about transparency, and (at least so far) 90% of the respondents are saying that SWF should be transparent about the funding it's getting from Meta. And, another poll zeroes in on funding and has different options for initial and up-front, and whether or not there are any strings attached.
The Bridgy Fed dev didn't get browbeaten into anything, he thinks the opt-in approach is better (and I agree). And he's also said the backlash was probably deserved.
Thanks for pointing that out! But, I got enough pushback on the wording of point 2 that I changed it to just "Think before you post"
The previous post that I linked to is now down to -70! Discussions about racism often make people very uncomfortable. Thanks for all your responses in the thread that came from this, one of the commenters blocked me so I can't respond directly to them, but I greatly appreciate it!
Thanks for the pointer.
Good point, thanks. I seem to recall another one as well -- although both were widely defederated so I suspect most people on those instances didn't wind up seeing them.
Thanks for making the effort to research it ... there are some great examples in this thread and some of the cross-posts (although some were so egregious that the mods took them down). Also, did you follow the links at the beginning of the article? They're talking about Mastodon (I'll include some examples from Lemmy in the revised version) but give an idea o the overall dyamics. In any case, I'll put in a big more about the problem in the revised draft.
Mutuals-only posts would be useful, and have been requested since 2018 if not earlier. As @ShittyKopper points out there are challenges; Claire's 2020 comment https://github.com/mastodon/mastodon/issues/7135#issuecomment-636767048 discusses the issues in more detail. Then again some other fediverse software has them already ... and Claire's comparison to follower-only posts highlights that it could be done, it's just not a priority. So this is another good example of something that's not likely to get addressed with today's structure, and potentially could be a fork with different priorities -- if resources are avaialble, which is of course a big if.
As you say though it's only shared to any other instance listening. The point of consent-based federation is that you get to choose which instances do and don't get to listen. So if your comment hasn't been sent out out to other instances, they don't have it.
Interesting, my first reaction is that I also wouldn't have expected it but as you say there's a lot of room in the Fediverse. In Seven Theses On The Fediverse And The Becoming Of Floss, Aymeric Mansoux and Roel Roscam Abbing talk about the Fediverse as "a site for online agonistic pluralism", and this is a good example - radically different views coexisting.