mastodon.social is one of the many independent Mastodon servers you can use to participate in the fediverse.
The original server operated by the Mastodon gGmbH non-profit

Administered by:

Server stats:

373K
active users

Ruszyła kolejna fala migracji z X/Twittera, więc dziś w #OkoPress przyglądam się alternatywom:
oko.press/ucieczka-z-twittera-

Co ciekawe, wszystkie – Fediverse, Bluesky, Threads – przynajmniej w jakimś stopniu twierdzą, że są zdecentralizowane. Mówię więc "sprawdzam", razem z @cwebber , @blaine i @ben .

Nie będzie dla nikogo zaskoczeniem, że #Bluesky i Threads mocno naciągają to "zdecentralizowanie." Ale sam fakt, że wszystkie realne alternatywy dla Twittera promują się decentralizacją jest znaczący!

OKO.press · Ucieczka z Twittera. Przyszłość mediów społecznościowych jest zdecentralizowanaBy Michał rysiek Woźniak
Uważam że Threads należy krytykować za to, jak powoli w porównaniu z możliwościami wdrażają federację, ale na pewno nie za decyzję o federacji opt-in. Federacja zaburza oczekiwania użytkownika mainstreamowych platform dot. prywatności i decyzja „wyrażam zgodę na udostępnianie moich danych nieograniczonej liczbie podmiotów, które mogą nie respektować mojego prawa do bycia zapomnianą” powinna być bardziej świadoma niż kliknięcie przycisku rejestracji na ✨tej nowej fajnej apce od Facebooka ✨

@rysiek @cwebber @blaine @ben
blaine

@mkljczk @rysiek @cwebber @ben that's not unreasonable, but I would ask how is it different to receive a follow request (or follower) from one of Threads' 200 million users different from one of the fediverse's max. 10 million? Especially given Meta's horrendous record of moderation and consistent contempt of their users?

I'm convinced it's Meta's intentional (or, charitably) incompetent attempt to drive regressive regulation rather than an earnest attempt to "protect" their users.

@blaine @mkljczk it's also pretty striking – and I should have put that in the article, but alas! – that the company that on every step and in pretty much every other case shoves changes down users' throats via opt-out, even (or especially) if these are unwanted or dangerous changes, now , in this one case, suddenly found their opt-in muscle.

@cwebber @ben

@rysiek @blaine @cwebber @ben I still believe that sharing data with third-parties should be opt-in, even when I am the third-party myself and *most of* the third-parties are good faith actors.

@mkljczk @blaine @rysiek I’d say all of you are right, it’s often the case that companies do “the right thing” very selectively, only when it also furthers their financial goals. A particular example I’m thinking of is usually when Google makes a change “for user security”, but coincidentally these always make life better for advertisers (even if they also have real security benefits). @cwebber @ben

@rysiek @ben @blaine @cwebber I already mentioned that federation by default breaks privacy expectations of average social media users. If you have a small Instagram account, you can reasonably assume that when you remove a photo from your profile, it becomes hard or impossible to find a copy of it. Federation with random services destroys this. And some Fediverse users are genuinely angry at Meta for warning Threads users about it.
👀 finally someone paid attention to this "tiny problem" with decentralization

> Federation with random services destroys this.

this will not be well received by activists, because demonstrating that something is 'by design' incompatible with EU law cannot be well welcomed, right?
I know this issue blows up when people start tracking what happens with their posts and removed profiles here and the complications with i.e. bridging protocols...

I need to ask my lawyer whether a user can even waive their rights through an opt-out and then later, for example, revert to enforcing those rights. If what they are entitled to stems from certain fundamental rights, can they renounce them? Logically speaking, and I’m not a lawyer, this seems contradictory to me, but I’d prefer an expert’s opinion...