We're slowly evaluating underused actor types like as:Group and as:Organization and also, with an influx of new users, we are evaluating more powerful ways to moderate our communities.
Are we approaching this at the right level?
Is it time to define what Community means?
No, we can't work in different domains, cause it is clearly defined in the Conformance Section:
“ENTIRETY of the client||server portion”
THEY must find ways of how to represent all types, not us for them.
But pleroma and mastodon are totally different in the sense that pleroma is using C2S and mastodon is not.
Nice discussion yesterday https://chat.indieweb.org/social/2021-01-25
Now when we have a compatible pleroma/immers/redaktor/etc. server, the software in question is only M.
@sl007 think you may be interpreting 'domain' wrong here?
C2S in technical sense defines an API interface.
But you are right about Conformance and supporting the ENTIRETY of client + server. Community domain is modelled on top of AS/AP in that regard, where #activitystreams is the Core Ontology.
My point is that if mastodon stays the elephant in the room and dictates an API as standard and does all important things behind the stage https://eunomia.social/EUNOMIA-D3.2-Architecture-SUBMITTED.pdf
while twitter worked with a team to do Birdwatch together and transparent
We are lost.
@sl007 @humanetech @cwebber Did you see this Cory Doctorow thread? he explains decentralization/vendor lockin in a simple way, and touches a bit on the advantages for moderation and free speech and communities: https://mobile.twitter.com/doctorow/status/1353908746959773696
full ack here – reason why I propose to limit instances
“Wiring digital justice: Embedding rights in Internet governance ‘by infrastructure’”
I am aware of this.
But I care about justice not about birds.
Inviting the authors of the protocol to do the same. Now.
Why shouldn't there be a "fediverse of trust" and "a fediverse".
At twitter the blue checkmark means celebrity.
At redaktor the orange checkmark means credibility …
The thread may be veering a bit off-topic, but I want to remind you of @darius conf video "Let's Play and Win Our Own Game".
We at #fediverse are not twitter. We need not model along twitter lines. We need not be as big as twitter, or FB or any FAMAG for that matter.
We are based on AS/AP open standards, and should continue our open-standards based approach. Add our domains to interoperate with. Do research, innovate..
And THEN likely:
We win at our own Game!
@rhiaro thanks! I just gave my twitter follow-up to @email@example.com at
@zleap @humanetech @cwebber @rhiaro not necessarily. I think it's fine to have feature disparity between different implementations. Mastodon's goal is to be a microblogging service, not a full-blown Facebook-style social network. The only thing that is needed is capability negotiation/detection just so you don't try to do actions that a remote server doesn't support.
@zleap @humanetech @cwebber @rhiaro @freemo well, Smithereen's theoretical post length limit is 65536 characters (or unicode codepoints?) because that's how much fits into a TEXT column in MySQL. If someone sends a longer post, it would get truncated. The Mastodon's 500-character limit is entirely artificial to make the UX more twittery and it's perfectly capable of storing and displaying posts that are much longer, I tested that.
Server run by the main developers of the project It is not focused on any particular niche interest - everyone is welcome as long as you follow our code of conduct!