@MrJameGumb yeah I thought @Diplomjodler3 nailed it with "monetize my ass". Then again people have been trying to commercialize the fediverse even before the term got invented -- StatusNet got initial venture funding back in 2009 or so back when it was still the identifverse. So it's a long-standing tension in fedi as a whole.
Mostly though I'm just entertained that people think that it's self-promotion on my part ๐
Instances in the free fediverses should consider "transitive defederation" from instances that federate with Meta
https://privacy.thenexus.today/consider-transitively-defederatiion/
Part 7 of Strategies for the free fediverses
Transitive defederation -- defederating from instances that federate with Threads as well as defederating from Threads -- isn't likely to be an all-or-nothing thing in the free fediverses. Tradeoffs are different for different people and instances. This is one of the strengths of the fediverse, so however much transitive defederation there winds up being, I see it as overall as a positive thing -- although also messy and complicated.
So the recommendation here is for instances to *consider* #TransitiveDefederation: discuss, and decide what to do. I've also got some thoughts on how to have the discussion -- and the strategic aspects.
https://privacy.thenexus.today/consider-transitively-defederatiion/
The free fediverses should work together with people and instances in Meta's fediverses and on Bluesky whose goals and values align with the free fediverse
https://privacy.thenexus.today/work-together-with-metas-fediverses-and-bluesky/
Part 6 of Strategies for the free fediverses
Many of the Meta advocates I've talked to share the free fediverses' long-term goal of building a sustainable alternative to surveillance capitalism -- and the same is true for people on Bluesky. So there are likely to be situations where some of the people and instances in Meta's fediverses and Bluesky wind up as situational allies to the free fediverses.
A few areas where collaboration could be very useful:
- A key principle of organizing is meeting people where they are.
- Moderation on decentralized networks is a shared challenge.
- Bringing concepts similar to Bluesky's custom feeds to the fediverses, and more generally focusing on human-focused and liberatory (as opposed to oppressive) uses of algorithms in decentralized social networks designed from the margins.
- Meta's fediverses, Bluesky, and the free fediverses are all vulnerable to disinformation.
https://privacy.thenexus.today/work-together-with-metas-fediverses-and-bluesky/
The free fediverses should make it easier to move between (and create) instances
Part 5 of Strategies for the Free Fediverse
https://privacy.thenexus.today/make-it-easier-to-move-to-instances-in-the-free-fediverses/
There's likely to be a lot of moving between instances as people and instances sort themselves out into the free fediverses and Meta's fediverses -- and today, moving accounts on the fediverse today. There are lots of straightforward ways to improve it, many of which don't even require improvements to the software. And there are also opportunities to make creating, customizing, and connecting instances easier.
The free fediverses should emphasize networked communities
https://privacy.thenexus.today/the-free-fediverses-should-emphasize-networked-communities/
Here's how @lrhodes describes the Networked Communities view:
"instances are valuable for the relations and interactions they facilitate locally AND for their ability to connect you to other parts of the network."
By contrast, @evanprodromou notes that "Big Fedi" advocates typically see instances as typically see the instance as "mostly a dumb pipe." But The Networked Communities view aligns much better with the free fediverses' values โ as does the "Social Archipelago" view @noracodes sketches in The Fediverse is Already Dead. Not only that, it's good strategy!
The free fediverses should focus on consent (including consent-based federation), privacy, and safety
https://privacy.thenexus.today/free-fediverses-and-consent/
(Part 2 of "Strategies for the free fediverses")
@daveley Great question. A rew reasons:
- mastodon.social's so big that the Local and Federated timelines aren't very useful.
- smaller instances (even if they're not special-interest focused) are more likely to have a good community.
- many other instances have "silenced" mastodon.social (because of its long history of moderation issues -- or just because of the volume), so people on other instances are less likely to connect with you.
All that being said, I wasn't trying to say that mastodon.social was terrible - it's the advice that's horrible. It's just that for most people it's not the best place to start.
@sibrosan The server rules on your server explicitly prohibit transphobia.
So why do you see enforcing the rules by not federating with another server that's got a long history of transphobia as "bias"?
Thanks @darnell , glad you like the analysis! I also think it's an opportunity as well as a threat, and I agree that right now it looks like most large instances won't block, and most of all I agree that we'll have to wait and see what happens!
@fancysandwiches when Darnell and I discussed this before he pointed to some things they've said that certainly might imply that -- although also might not (which is back to the wait and see). It's certainly true that somebody like Oprah would have an IT department capable of running it and would see the advantages of being able to do that. But we don't really know,
all they've said is "decentralized".
@socsa see @jdp23@blahaj.lemmy.zone's comment at https://lemmy.blahaj.zone/comment/57856
[Also btw does anybody know why @socsa's comment showed up on my Mastodon profile here and @LadyAutumn's comment didn't?
Congrats ... and timely too!
And yes, good article @Sarahp
@julian