Remember that federating with a Meta service means handing over post data even for posts which are not directly towards a user on their servers. For marginalised and vulnerable communities in particular, keeping data out of Meta’s hands can be a priority. (View Highlight)
Claiming that a commitment to openness requires giving Meta access to your posts, that you somehow must cooperate with them or allow them into your community is another of those occasions when it’s obvious that someone doesn’t understand that freedom of association also includes the ability to choose not to associate – and that freedom of association is, if anything, an even more important right than freedom of speech. It’s the freedom not to have to listen. (View Highlight)
What defines Mastodon is not the use of a protocol. The protocol is just an enabler. Instead, Mastodon is defined by allowing communities (instances) freedom of association. It is the ability of communities to choose not to federate with anyone else which gives Mastodon its strength. (View Highlight)
For some marginal communities the freedom of association which Mastodon is based on is the difference between having a space that’s safe for them to express themselves and not having a space at all. (View Highlight)
Email runs on open protocols, so it’s technically possible for me to run a server on my Mac mini upstairs and start sending and receiving mail. The reality, though, is that virtually none of the mail I send would get through – because Gmail, Microsoft, et al would mark it as suspicious and end up automatically blocked as spam. (View Highlight)
It’s incredibly naive to think that openness automatically makes things better when you have companies totally willing to exploit that openness to dominate a market. (View Highlight)
But you don’t have to be an anti-capitalist to believe that Meta, in particular, is not worthy of even a shred of trust (View Highlight)
Claiming that a commitment to openness requires giving Meta access to your posts, that you somehow must cooperate with them or allow them into your community is another of those occasions when it’s obvious that someone doesn’t understand that freedom of association also includes the ability to choose not to associate – and that freedom of association is, if anything, an even more important right than freedom of speech. It’s the freedom not to have to listen. (View Highlight)
It’s incredibly naive to think that openness automatically makes things better when you have companies totally willing to exploit that openness to dominate a market. (View Highlight)

Meta and Mastodon – What’s Really on People’s Minds?

rw-book-cover

Metadata

Author: John Gruber
Full Title: Meta and Mastodon – What’s Really on People’s Minds?
Category: articles
URL: https://ianbetteridge.com/2023/06/21/meta-and-mastodon-whats-really-on-peoples-minds/

Highlights

Remember that federating with a Meta service means handing over post data even for posts which are not directly towards a user on their servers. For marginalised and vulnerable communities in particular, keeping data out of Meta’s hands can be a priority. (View Highlight)
Claiming that a commitment to openness requires giving Meta access to your posts, that you somehow must cooperate with them or allow them into your community is another of those occasions when it’s obvious that someone doesn’t understand that freedom of association also includes the ability to choose not to associate – and that freedom of association is, if anything, an even more important right than freedom of speech. It’s the freedom not to have to listen. (View Highlight)
What defines Mastodon is not the use of a protocol. The protocol is just an enabler. Instead, Mastodon is defined by allowing communities (instances) freedom of association. It is the ability of communities to choose not to federate with anyone else which gives Mastodon its strength. (View Highlight)
For some marginal communities the freedom of association which Mastodon is based on is the difference between having a space that’s safe for them to express themselves and not having a space at all. (View Highlight)
Email runs on open protocols, so it’s technically possible for me to run a server on my Mac mini upstairs and start sending and receiving mail. The reality, though, is that virtually none of the mail I send would get through – because Gmail, Microsoft, et al would mark it as suspicious and end up automatically blocked as spam. (View Highlight)
It’s incredibly naive to think that openness automatically makes things better when you have companies totally willing to exploit that openness to dominate a market. (View Highlight)
But you don’t have to be an anti-capitalist to believe that Meta, in particular, is not worthy of even a shred of trust (View Highlight)
Claiming that a commitment to openness requires giving Meta access to your posts, that you somehow must cooperate with them or allow them into your community is another of those occasions when it’s obvious that someone doesn’t understand that freedom of association also includes the ability to choose not to associate – and that freedom of association is, if anything, an even more important right than freedom of speech. It’s the freedom not to have to listen. (View Highlight)
It’s incredibly naive to think that openness automatically makes things better when you have companies totally willing to exploit that openness to dominate a market. (View Highlight)

Meta and Mastodon – What’s Really on People’s Minds?

rw-book-cover

Metadata

Author: John Gruber
Full Title: Meta and Mastodon – What’s Really on People’s Minds?
Category: articles
URL: https://ianbetteridge.com/2023/06/21/meta-and-mastodon-whats-really-on-peoples-minds/

Highlights