24.09.2025 10:53
objects (@objects@akk.fedcast.ch)
@captainfutura
Ja und du fühlst dich verarscht, weil du für deine Arbeit im #Fediverse "mit viel Glück" nur 100 Likes bekommst statt den 1000 in WhatsApp. @philsuessmann
Show Original Post
objects (@objects@akk.fedcast.ch)
@captainfutura
Ja und du fühlst dich verarscht, weil du für deine Arbeit im #Fediverse "mit viel Glück" nur 100 Likes bekommst statt den 1000 in WhatsApp. @philsuessmann
Show Original Post
24.09.2025 10:36
objects (@objects@akk.fedcast.ch)
@philsuessmann
Wie ich schon sagte: Dann bist du mMn aber im #Fediverse am falschen Ort. Hier zählt noch immer Qualität vor Quantität - Likes und Reichweite sind sekundär.
Für solche Dinge gibts die kommerziellen Netzwerke, die mit Algorithmen diese Geldmacherei noch tüchtig unterstützen.
@captainfutura
Show Original Post
objects (@objects@akk.fedcast.ch)
@philsuessmann
Wie ich schon sagte: Dann bist du mMn aber im #Fediverse am falschen Ort. Hier zählt noch immer Qualität vor Quantität - Likes und Reichweite sind sekundär.
Für solche Dinge gibts die kommerziellen Netzwerke, die mit Algorithmen diese Geldmacherei noch tüchtig unterstützen.
@captainfutura
Show Original Post
24.09.2025 10:32
objects (@objects@akk.fedcast.ch)
@philsuessmann
Mit anderen Worten: Du bekommst also Geld für Likes?
Da bin ich mir jetzt aber gerade nicht so sicher, ob das #Fediverse wirklich der richtige Ort für dein Buseinesskonzept ist. @captainfutura
Show Original Post
objects (@objects@akk.fedcast.ch)
@philsuessmann
Mit anderen Worten: Du bekommst also Geld für Likes?
Da bin ich mir jetzt aber gerade nicht so sicher, ob das #Fediverse wirklich der richtige Ort für dein Buseinesskonzept ist. @captainfutura
Show Original Post
24.09.2025 10:31
item (@item@libera.site)
#Mastodon #Statistics 2025-09-24 10:00 CEST
Number of active instances: 10 722
Number of users: 9 995 100
Number of statuses: 1 093 426 100
Number of users last 4h: 54
Number of statuses last 4h: 80 640
Help me keep stats and server running! 💻📊 Even a small monthly contribution makes a big difference. Support here: #^https://www.patreon.com/FediverseStatistics 🙏
#Fediverse
Show Original Post
item (@item@libera.site)
#Mastodon #Statistics 2025-09-24 10:00 CEST
Number of active instances: 10 722
Number of users: 9 995 100
Number of statuses: 1 093 426 100
Number of users last 4h: 54
Number of statuses last 4h: 80 640
Help me keep stats and server running! 💻📊 Even a small monthly contribution makes a big difference. Support here: #^https://www.patreon.com/FediverseStatistics 🙏
#Fediverse
Show Original Post
24.09.2025 10:30
kaeseafour (@kaeseafour@inkupify.my)
Show Original Post
kaeseafour (@kaeseafour@inkupify.my)
To those servers who show a lack of remorse and accountability, I want to tell you and remind you that I am not looking for your definition of losing or winning. I am seeking justice, and justice isn't bound by space and time. See you guys after a while.
#justice #accountability #fediverse #integrity #onlinecommunity #ethics #digitalrights #responsibility #socialmedia #community #principles #moderation #values #onlineethics #truth
Show Original Post
24.09.2025 10:27
pabuisson (@pabuisson@ruby.social)
Show Original Post
pabuisson (@pabuisson@ruby.social)
I've been looking into @pixelfed lately and am considering creating an account, but I'm not sure what's the impact of signing in with my existing @Mastodon account versus creating a dedicated account for Pixelfed 🤔
Anyone who knows of a doc explaining this, or existing discussions about the topic? 🙏
#pixelfed #mastodon #fediverse
Show Original Post
24.09.2025 10:14
kaeseafour (@kaeseafour@inkupify.my)
Show Original Post
kaeseafour (@kaeseafour@inkupify.my)
So, there is one Fediverse instance with concerning accountability and transparency. It didn't mention any terms and conditions, nor any rules of the server instance. The registration is open but curated by their admins, they said. And also, it's not transparent whether this server is in blocklist mode or allowlist, but the recent interaction with my server by one of their users suggests they have already included my server in their federation. I received one private message from them. It's disturbing and causes emotional distress rather than improvement in my emotional well-being. In my online territory, federation with my server is voluntary and requires users to voluntarily follow my server's terms, conditions, and rules. As an admin of this server, I strongly believe that accountability is not optional. I will scrutinize this Fediverse instance to ensure the safety and well-being of online users.
Federation must be voluntary, transparent, and accountable to protect user well-being.
#fediverse #decentralization #onlinecommunity #accountability #transparency #digitalwellbeing #privacy #moderation #safetyonline #communitystandards #opensource #socialmedia #technology #internet #cybersecurity
Show Original Post
24.09.2025 10:14
botwikirandomfediverse (@botwikirandomfediverse@stefanbohacek.online)
Show Original Post
botwikirandomfediverse (@botwikirandomfediverse@stefanbohacek.online)
TOOT!
https://botwiki.org/bot/tootbot/
Follow: https://mastodon.social/@TootBot
#bots #CreativeBots #CreativeCoding #fediverse
Show Original Post
24.09.2025 10:10
p (@p@pixelfed.social)
#fotovorschlag "verwischt" Chicago from a train or car. It's been so long that I don't remember. But I do remember finding it a beautiful city. Especially at night. #travel #night #streetphotography #cityscape #cityview #photography #fediverse
Show Original Post
p (@p@pixelfed.social)
#fotovorschlag "verwischt" Chicago from a train or car. It's been so long that I don't remember. But I do remember finding it a beautiful city. Especially at night. #travel #night #streetphotography #cityscape #cityview #photography #fediverse
Show Original Post
24.09.2025 10:03
item (@item@hub.netzgemeinde.eu)
@Julian Fietkau Maybe it'd make sense to get the devs aboard, @Mario Vavti and @Harald Eilertsen for Hubzilla and @Mike Macgirvin ?️ for (streams) and Forte. And I think there's a new place being worked on where Fediverse devs can meet in the Fediverse itself, but I don't have any more details right now.
I can see four things becoming tricky when it comes to comment control. One is if it isn't enough to add support for another implementation, and if either side actually had to change the way it handles permission in a way that isn't backwards-compatible.
The second one is that Hubzilla, (streams) and Forte don't simply allow or forbid comments, but they can allow only certain actors to comment, and be it all contacts of a channel. I don't know if GTS has that feature, or if it can support it.
The third one is that (streams) and Forte can limit the time in which a post can be commented. Channels can be configured so that comments are only allowed for a certain timespan, and individual posts can be configured so that they can only be commented on until a certain point in the future.
Now, the thing is that, much unlike all the many microblogging applications, the permissions in a conversation are always the same on (streams) and Forte (and also on Hubzilla). All comments, regardless of whether they come from (streams) or Mastodon or Lemmy or wherever, always have the same permissions as the post. Replying to a public conversation with a DM is not supported, for example; the DM will be regarded as a public comment.
This also means that you're only allowed to reply to a comment in a thread if you're also allowed to comment on the post itself. But if you're allowed to comment on the post, you're also allowed to reply to any comment in the conversation, full stop.
Speaking in "non-nomadic, no-enclosed-conversations ActivityPub" terms, this means that at a certain point after a post was sent, the owner of the post will have to automatically send a new version of both the post and all comments on the post, with comment permission revoked, around to all participants in the conversation as well as to everywhere that e.g. some Mastodon user has boosted one of the comments.
Either that, or a comment control FEP will have to include temporary comment permissions, and Mastodon and everything else will have to support them. I'm pretty sure that Mastodon users would love this feature, and they'd applaud Eugen Rochko for "inventing" it and "introducing it to the Fediverse". But (streams) and Forte certainly won't remove this feature just because the FEP don't support it.
As for how Hubzilla, (streams) and Forte handle this right now, AFAIK, they only advertise their comment permissions amongst each other. This means that if permission to comment is not granted, the comment button is removed from the UI. Not even greyed out, actually removed.
Towards the wider Fediverse, they act differently: They're fully aware that they can't keep a Mastodon account from commenting. Instead, they reject a comment that isn't allowed. And rejecting works differently on these three than on Mastodon: Rejected content is not first let into the inbox, then filtered and then deleted. It isn't let into the inbox in the first place. And if an activity has only got one possible recipient on a server, and that recipient doesn't allow that activity, the whole server rejects it.
The reason why this works for comment control is because conversations themselves work differently on these three (and Friendica) than on Mastodon: On Mastodon, replies go to a) whoever is mentioned and b) whoever follows the replier. On Friendica, Hubzilla, (streams) and Forte, comments always go straight to the conversation starter, even if they're comments on a comment on a comment on a comment, and from there to all participants in the thread. Of course, Mastodon users won't notice new comments until they're mentioned in the metadata.
Now, if the conversation starter rejects a comment that has actually been sent, the comment is not added to the conversation. This means two things: One, on the conversation starter's own stream, the comment does not appear as part of the conversation. Two, the comment is not forwarded to the other participants in the thread either.
From a Mastodon POV, this means that you may be able to see the branch of the conversation in which you've participated with your rejected comment in it on your own server. But if you go check the whole thread at its source, you will not see your rejected comment in the conversation.
A side-effect of this is that it isn't possible to reply to rejected comments either. Let's suppose you see some toot in your timeline. It's a comment on some (streams) post. What the commenter is blissfully unaware of: They aren't permitted to comment on this post. (streams) has rejected the comment. But you are amongst the lucky few who are permitted to comment.
Still, you can't reply to that one comment.
If a comment is rejected, then all replies to this comment are rejected, too, regardless of permissions. That's because they cannot be attached to the conversation because their own parent is missing. From your Mastodon POV, you will be able to reply. But your reply will never become part of the conversation.
This would all be a whole lot better if the entire Fediverse supported a) enclosed threaded conversations (as opposed to Twitter-like posts-and-more-posts piecemeal) and b) permissions, including comment control all the way to temporary comment permission.
#Long #LongPost #CWLong #CWLongPost #FediMeta #FediverseMeta #CWFediMeta #CWFediverseMeta #Fediverse #Mastodon #GoToSocial #Friendica #Hubzilla #Streams #(streams) #Forte #Permission #Permissions #ReplyControl
Show Original Post
item (@item@hub.netzgemeinde.eu)
@Julian Fietkau Maybe it'd make sense to get the devs aboard, @Mario Vavti and @Harald Eilertsen for Hubzilla and @Mike Macgirvin ?️ for (streams) and Forte. And I think there's a new place being worked on where Fediverse devs can meet in the Fediverse itself, but I don't have any more details right now.
I can see four things becoming tricky when it comes to comment control. One is if it isn't enough to add support for another implementation, and if either side actually had to change the way it handles permission in a way that isn't backwards-compatible.
The second one is that Hubzilla, (streams) and Forte don't simply allow or forbid comments, but they can allow only certain actors to comment, and be it all contacts of a channel. I don't know if GTS has that feature, or if it can support it.
The third one is that (streams) and Forte can limit the time in which a post can be commented. Channels can be configured so that comments are only allowed for a certain timespan, and individual posts can be configured so that they can only be commented on until a certain point in the future.
Now, the thing is that, much unlike all the many microblogging applications, the permissions in a conversation are always the same on (streams) and Forte (and also on Hubzilla). All comments, regardless of whether they come from (streams) or Mastodon or Lemmy or wherever, always have the same permissions as the post. Replying to a public conversation with a DM is not supported, for example; the DM will be regarded as a public comment.
This also means that you're only allowed to reply to a comment in a thread if you're also allowed to comment on the post itself. But if you're allowed to comment on the post, you're also allowed to reply to any comment in the conversation, full stop.
Speaking in "non-nomadic, no-enclosed-conversations ActivityPub" terms, this means that at a certain point after a post was sent, the owner of the post will have to automatically send a new version of both the post and all comments on the post, with comment permission revoked, around to all participants in the conversation as well as to everywhere that e.g. some Mastodon user has boosted one of the comments.
Either that, or a comment control FEP will have to include temporary comment permissions, and Mastodon and everything else will have to support them. I'm pretty sure that Mastodon users would love this feature, and they'd applaud Eugen Rochko for "inventing" it and "introducing it to the Fediverse". But (streams) and Forte certainly won't remove this feature just because the FEP don't support it.
As for how Hubzilla, (streams) and Forte handle this right now, AFAIK, they only advertise their comment permissions amongst each other. This means that if permission to comment is not granted, the comment button is removed from the UI. Not even greyed out, actually removed.
Towards the wider Fediverse, they act differently: They're fully aware that they can't keep a Mastodon account from commenting. Instead, they reject a comment that isn't allowed. And rejecting works differently on these three than on Mastodon: Rejected content is not first let into the inbox, then filtered and then deleted. It isn't let into the inbox in the first place. And if an activity has only got one possible recipient on a server, and that recipient doesn't allow that activity, the whole server rejects it.
The reason why this works for comment control is because conversations themselves work differently on these three (and Friendica) than on Mastodon: On Mastodon, replies go to a) whoever is mentioned and b) whoever follows the replier. On Friendica, Hubzilla, (streams) and Forte, comments always go straight to the conversation starter, even if they're comments on a comment on a comment on a comment, and from there to all participants in the thread. Of course, Mastodon users won't notice new comments until they're mentioned in the metadata.
Now, if the conversation starter rejects a comment that has actually been sent, the comment is not added to the conversation. This means two things: One, on the conversation starter's own stream, the comment does not appear as part of the conversation. Two, the comment is not forwarded to the other participants in the thread either.
From a Mastodon POV, this means that you may be able to see the branch of the conversation in which you've participated with your rejected comment in it on your own server. But if you go check the whole thread at its source, you will not see your rejected comment in the conversation.
A side-effect of this is that it isn't possible to reply to rejected comments either. Let's suppose you see some toot in your timeline. It's a comment on some (streams) post. What the commenter is blissfully unaware of: They aren't permitted to comment on this post. (streams) has rejected the comment. But you are amongst the lucky few who are permitted to comment.
Still, you can't reply to that one comment.
If a comment is rejected, then all replies to this comment are rejected, too, regardless of permissions. That's because they cannot be attached to the conversation because their own parent is missing. From your Mastodon POV, you will be able to reply. But your reply will never become part of the conversation.
This would all be a whole lot better if the entire Fediverse supported a) enclosed threaded conversations (as opposed to Twitter-like posts-and-more-posts piecemeal) and b) permissions, including comment control all the way to temporary comment permission.
#Long #LongPost #CWLong #CWLongPost #FediMeta #FediverseMeta #CWFediMeta #CWFediverseMeta #Fediverse #Mastodon #GoToSocial #Friendica #Hubzilla #Streams #(streams) #Forte #Permission #Permissions #ReplyControl
Show Original Post
24.09.2025 10:03
item (@item@hub.hubzilla.de)
@Julian Fietkau Maybe it'd make sense to get the devs aboard, @Mario Vavti and @Harald Eilertsen for Hubzilla and @Mike Macgirvin ?️ for (streams) and Forte. And I think there's a new place being worked on where Fediverse devs can meet in the Fediverse itself, but I don't have any more details right now.
I can see four things becoming tricky when it comes to comment control. One is if it isn't enough to add support for another implementation, and if either side actually had to change the way it handles permission in a way that isn't backwards-compatible.
The second one is that Hubzilla, (streams) and Forte don't simply allow or forbid comments, but they can allow only certain actors to comment, and be it all contacts of a channel. I don't know if GTS has that feature, or if it can support it.
The third one is that (streams) and Forte can limit the time in which a post can be commented. Channels can be configured so that comments are only allowed for a certain timespan, and individual posts can be configured so that they can only be commented on until a certain point in the future.
Now, the thing is that, much unlike all the many microblogging applications, the permissions in a conversation are always the same on (streams) and Forte (and also on Hubzilla). All comments, regardless of whether they come from (streams) or Mastodon or Lemmy or wherever, always have the same permissions as the post. Replying to a public conversation with a DM is not supported, for example; the DM will be regarded as a public comment.
This also means that you're only allowed to reply to a comment in a thread if you're also allowed to comment on the post itself. But if you're allowed to comment on the post, you're also allowed to reply to any comment in the conversation, full stop.
Speaking in "non-nomadic, no-enclosed-conversations ActivityPub" terms, this means that at a certain point after a post was sent, the owner of the post will have to automatically send a new version of both the post and all comments on the post, with comment permission revoked, around to all participants in the conversation as well as to everywhere that e.g. some Mastodon user has boosted one of the comments.
Either that, or a comment control FEP will have to include temporary comment permissions, and Mastodon and everything else will have to support them. I'm pretty sure that Mastodon users would love this feature, and they'd applaud Eugen Rochko for "inventing" it and "introducing it to the Fediverse". But (streams) and Forte certainly won't remove this feature just because the FEP don't support it.
As for how Hubzilla, (streams) and Forte handle this right now, AFAIK, they only advertise their comment permissions amongst each other. This means that if permission to comment is not granted, the comment button is removed from the UI. Not even greyed out, actually removed.
Towards the wider Fediverse, they act differently: They're fully aware that they can't keep a Mastodon account from commenting. Instead, they reject a comment that isn't allowed. And rejecting works differently on these three than on Mastodon: Rejected content is not first let into the inbox, then filtered and then deleted. It isn't let into the inbox in the first place. And if an activity has only got one possible recipient on a server, and that recipient doesn't allow that activity, the whole server rejects it.
The reason why this works for comment control is because conversations themselves work differently on these three (and Friendica) than on Mastodon: On Mastodon, replies go to a) whoever is mentioned and b) whoever follows the replier. On Friendica, Hubzilla, (streams) and Forte, comments always go straight to the conversation starter, even if they're comments on a comment on a comment on a comment, and from there to all participants in the thread. Of course, Mastodon users won't notice new comments until they're mentioned in the metadata.
Now, if the conversation starter rejects a comment that has actually been sent, the comment is not added to the conversation. This means two things: One, on the conversation starter's own stream, the comment does not appear as part of the conversation. Two, the comment is not forwarded to the other participants in the thread either.
From a Mastodon POV, this means that you may be able to see the branch of the conversation in which you've participated with your rejected comment in it on your own server. But if you go check the whole thread at its source, you will not see your rejected comment in the conversation.
A side-effect of this is that it isn't possible to reply to rejected comments either. Let's suppose you see some toot in your timeline. It's a comment on some (streams) post. What the commenter is blissfully unaware of: They aren't permitted to comment on this post. (streams) has rejected the comment. But you are amongst the lucky few who are permitted to comment.
Still, you can't reply to that one comment.
If a comment is rejected, then all replies to this comment are rejected, too, regardless of permissions. That's because they cannot be attached to the conversation because their own parent is missing. From your Mastodon POV, you will be able to reply. But your reply will never become part of the conversation.
This would all be a whole lot better if the entire Fediverse supported a) enclosed threaded conversations (as opposed to Twitter-like posts-and-more-posts piecemeal) and b) permissions, including comment control all the way to temporary comment permission.
#Long #LongPost #CWLong #CWLongPost #FediMeta #FediverseMeta #CWFediMeta #CWFediverseMeta #Fediverse #Mastodon #GoToSocial #Friendica #Hubzilla #Streams #(streams) #Forte #Permission #Permissions #ReplyControl
Show Original Post
item (@item@hub.hubzilla.de)
@Julian Fietkau Maybe it'd make sense to get the devs aboard, @Mario Vavti and @Harald Eilertsen for Hubzilla and @Mike Macgirvin ?️ for (streams) and Forte. And I think there's a new place being worked on where Fediverse devs can meet in the Fediverse itself, but I don't have any more details right now.
I can see four things becoming tricky when it comes to comment control. One is if it isn't enough to add support for another implementation, and if either side actually had to change the way it handles permission in a way that isn't backwards-compatible.
The second one is that Hubzilla, (streams) and Forte don't simply allow or forbid comments, but they can allow only certain actors to comment, and be it all contacts of a channel. I don't know if GTS has that feature, or if it can support it.
The third one is that (streams) and Forte can limit the time in which a post can be commented. Channels can be configured so that comments are only allowed for a certain timespan, and individual posts can be configured so that they can only be commented on until a certain point in the future.
Now, the thing is that, much unlike all the many microblogging applications, the permissions in a conversation are always the same on (streams) and Forte (and also on Hubzilla). All comments, regardless of whether they come from (streams) or Mastodon or Lemmy or wherever, always have the same permissions as the post. Replying to a public conversation with a DM is not supported, for example; the DM will be regarded as a public comment.
This also means that you're only allowed to reply to a comment in a thread if you're also allowed to comment on the post itself. But if you're allowed to comment on the post, you're also allowed to reply to any comment in the conversation, full stop.
Speaking in "non-nomadic, no-enclosed-conversations ActivityPub" terms, this means that at a certain point after a post was sent, the owner of the post will have to automatically send a new version of both the post and all comments on the post, with comment permission revoked, around to all participants in the conversation as well as to everywhere that e.g. some Mastodon user has boosted one of the comments.
Either that, or a comment control FEP will have to include temporary comment permissions, and Mastodon and everything else will have to support them. I'm pretty sure that Mastodon users would love this feature, and they'd applaud Eugen Rochko for "inventing" it and "introducing it to the Fediverse". But (streams) and Forte certainly won't remove this feature just because the FEP don't support it.
As for how Hubzilla, (streams) and Forte handle this right now, AFAIK, they only advertise their comment permissions amongst each other. This means that if permission to comment is not granted, the comment button is removed from the UI. Not even greyed out, actually removed.
Towards the wider Fediverse, they act differently: They're fully aware that they can't keep a Mastodon account from commenting. Instead, they reject a comment that isn't allowed. And rejecting works differently on these three than on Mastodon: Rejected content is not first let into the inbox, then filtered and then deleted. It isn't let into the inbox in the first place. And if an activity has only got one possible recipient on a server, and that recipient doesn't allow that activity, the whole server rejects it.
The reason why this works for comment control is because conversations themselves work differently on these three (and Friendica) than on Mastodon: On Mastodon, replies go to a) whoever is mentioned and b) whoever follows the replier. On Friendica, Hubzilla, (streams) and Forte, comments always go straight to the conversation starter, even if they're comments on a comment on a comment on a comment, and from there to all participants in the thread. Of course, Mastodon users won't notice new comments until they're mentioned in the metadata.
Now, if the conversation starter rejects a comment that has actually been sent, the comment is not added to the conversation. This means two things: One, on the conversation starter's own stream, the comment does not appear as part of the conversation. Two, the comment is not forwarded to the other participants in the thread either.
From a Mastodon POV, this means that you may be able to see the branch of the conversation in which you've participated with your rejected comment in it on your own server. But if you go check the whole thread at its source, you will not see your rejected comment in the conversation.
A side-effect of this is that it isn't possible to reply to rejected comments either. Let's suppose you see some toot in your timeline. It's a comment on some (streams) post. What the commenter is blissfully unaware of: They aren't permitted to comment on this post. (streams) has rejected the comment. But you are amongst the lucky few who are permitted to comment.
Still, you can't reply to that one comment.
If a comment is rejected, then all replies to this comment are rejected, too, regardless of permissions. That's because they cannot be attached to the conversation because their own parent is missing. From your Mastodon POV, you will be able to reply. But your reply will never become part of the conversation.
This would all be a whole lot better if the entire Fediverse supported a) enclosed threaded conversations (as opposed to Twitter-like posts-and-more-posts piecemeal) and b) permissions, including comment control all the way to temporary comment permission.
#Long #LongPost #CWLong #CWLongPost #FediMeta #FediverseMeta #CWFediMeta #CWFediverseMeta #Fediverse #Mastodon #GoToSocial #Friendica #Hubzilla #Streams #(streams) #Forte #Permission #Permissions #ReplyControl
Show Original Post
24.09.2025 09:38
item (@item@libera.site)
#Plume #Statistics 2025-09-24 09:00 CEST
Number of active instances: 30
Number of users: 23 965
Number of posts: 25 324
Number of comments: 119 584
Number of users last 4h: 0
Number of posts last 4h: 1
Number of comments last 4h: 4
#Fediverse
Show Original Post
item (@item@libera.site)
#Plume #Statistics 2025-09-24 09:00 CEST
Number of active instances: 30
Number of users: 23 965
Number of posts: 25 324
Number of comments: 119 584
Number of users last 4h: 0
Number of posts last 4h: 1
Number of comments last 4h: 4
#Fediverse
Show Original Post