Conversation

Notices

1. kaniini (kaniini@mastodon.dereferenced.org)'s status on Friday, 01-Dec-2017 18:29:48 EST kaniini

   I wish mastodon instance admins would consider very carefully the consequences of their actions, and actually investigate abuse reports instead of just suspending accounts.

   if you're not willing to properly investigate an abuse report, you shouldn't run an instance or participate as a moderator on one.

   with schestowitz banned, many people who contribute to FOSS are now more worried about using mastodon instances and will likely migrate back to gnu social instances.

   ironically, this is exactly what i warned about when describing why the block system needed to be redesigned (as it was in mastodon-hardened).

   a moderator at mastodon.technology looked at one single post and made their entire decision based on this post, and now people who were starting to believe that mastodon was good are now retreating back to using the old GNU Social/StatusNet software.

   i don't know what the solution is, but i am disappointed that the mastodon.technology admins decided to do this, all it does is create problems with getting things off OStatus and onto the much more secure ActivityPub.

   1. Bob Mottram (bob@social.freedombone.net)'s status on Friday, 01-Dec-2017 18:41:33 EST Bob Mottram

      in reply to
      @kaniini It is a pity that Roy got banned. Most of the suggestions seem to be that he moves to a gnusocial instance or starts his own.
      
      Something which is important is to keep the amount of administration work as low as possible, otherwise people just won't bother becoming admins for multiple users. Like anyone, admins won't have much time or inclination to get involved with dramas and so they will typically do only the minimum possible. It's why it's a good idea to try to keep the number of users per instance low.
      1. kaniini (kaniini@mastodon.dereferenced.org)'s status on Friday, 01-Dec-2017 23:13:01 EST kaniini

         in reply to

         @bob

         my problem is that OStatus is a disaster of a protocol and gnu social isn’t likely to ever be upgraded to use activitypub (after all the guy who made gnu social started a new project after being unhappy with gnu social codebase).

         Roy’s frustration is legitimate but the end result is one that likely leaves the federated web worse off, because it’s more instances that do not use ActivityPub, which has a much better security posture than OStatus.

   2. Zordon (Linux Walt) (zordon@mastodon.social)'s status on Saturday, 02-Dec-2017 10:14:35 EST Zordon (Linux Walt)

      in reply to

      @kaniini

      -- "... much more secure ActivityPub."

      Security between #OStatus and #ActivityPub is exactly the same. If that's the sole advantage you're looking for, you'll be soundly disappointed on an AP-only network.

      As for the #blockwars problem that Roy @schestowitz mentioned, the only possible solutions are (1) to put better blocking and filtering tools in the hands of the users instead of concentrating more power into admins' hands; and (2) smaller instances instead of larger ones.

      1. kaniini (kaniini@mastodon.dereferenced.org)'s status on Wednesday, 06-Dec-2017 01:52:45 EST kaniini

         in reply to

         @zordon @schestowitz

         It's not, and to be clear I'm not talking about the advisory privacy attributes.

         ActivityPub and OStatus use wildly different authentication schemes, HTTP Signatures vs. Salmon. Salmon is the state of the art of approximately 10 years ago when identi.ca was a thing.

         (Yes, I'm aware that Mastodon uses HTTP Signatures where possible with OStatus, it has to still cope with servers that do not use HTTP sigs.)