#Misskey security update. Someone created "instances" which trigger a denial of service in Misskey and possibly #Mastodon. From what I hear, #Pleroma is not vulnerable. #GNUsocial is likely also vulnerable.
We can expect a lot more of these kind of things now that the #Fediverse is getting attention.
This is a month ago, but this is a CNN reporter's take on #Mastodon (and the #Fediverse, though they apparently do not yet know that there's a lot more than Mastodon).
Depending on my skills, available time, and whether the projects' CoCs are acceptable, I would also like to contribute to both #GNU_Social and #Friendica. I know both projects can use a little additional momentum.
I've never thought of banking as federated, but you're right that it has a number of similarities. Like any analogy, if one takes it too far, it breaks down, but it is useful enough for explaining the #Fediverse to outsiders.
@lnxw48a1 @fu If I may pitch in on on th etopic of "how the fediverse works"...
Yes, you can explain it with the image of email and email providers. But you rely on "freedom" (whose?) to describe a structure that doesn't explain why newbies can and cannot subscribe to other people or otherwise interact with accounts and posts.
A different way is stop putting "freedom" into the centre – which in itself is a rather problematic hierarchical approach as it invokes the imagery of landlords dealing with their rowdy tenants – and explain to people the basics of #federation, from which most of the peculiarities and problems of fediverse interactions arise.
2015 I wrote a piece for Twitter migrants to GNUsocial primarily from the angle of a layperson, explaining the various oddities by pointing to and explaining from federation as the root cause. Perhaps this snippet is of some help:
Food for thought: The bigger mastodon.social gets, the less successful the #fediverse is.
Sadly, the fundamental design of Mastodon mirrors the design of Big Tech (a server architecture that can support hundreds of thousands of “users”) and thus inherits its success criteria.
I feel it’s time we at least started thinking about what the web would look like if we all had our own place on it and what it would take to get there from here.
Michael Vogel (heluecht@pirati.ca)'s status on Sunday, 30-Oct-2022 13:25:36 EDT
Michael VogelIch bin gerade hinreichend geflasht. Das #fediverse ist gerade echt massiv am Wachsen. Auf squeet.me habe ich ja ein paar Bot-Accounts, die Beiträge von Nachrichtenmagazinen, Zeitungen, ... ins Fediverse bringen. Die Abonnentenzahlen sind die letzten Tage echt explodiert. Der Tagesschau-Account liegt jetzt bei über 20.000 Abonnenten, Heise hat über 17.000 und der Bot-Account der taz hat über 12.000 Leute (ich habe gesehen, dass der echte Account der taz bei fast 8.000 Leuten liegt, ist also auch recht gut) ...
I actually think that the overwhelming majority of blocking should be done by individuals curating their own timelines. I am sensitive to the effect on the Fediverse as a whole, especially as we've already been through this.
Even the original #bifurcation (when the largest instance at the time, Identica, severed communication with #StatusNet / #GNUsocial & #OStatus and switched to the #Pump.io protocol and software) and the subsequent #ActivityPub - #OStatus split have caused untold breakage. I've seen AP-side devs, admins, users patting themselves on the back while commiserating about brokenness that is built into the protocol itself or at least its common implementations.
I have also seen people telling other people to create "alts" on various instances, so that their posts can reach all of their intended contacts. Not for resilience against instance shutdowns or separating by posts and recipients by topics and interests (which is what groups and Diaspora style Aspects / GPlus style Circles are for), but because #blockwars prevents posts and members from one instance to be seen on certain others.
For the record, I think that instance governance is something that Mastodon should include in its instances.social instance-picker, along with instances' topical foci. People should have a way to see what they're agreeing to (and what the alternatives are) before the sign up.
In other words, it isn't my way or the highway so much as it is making it possible to know what one is getting into. I am certain that there are (or were) instances with democratically chosen rules. I also believe that we're not doing the people who use an instance any favor by not making it possible for them to contribute to the financing and administration of the instance. If you're paying all the costs and doing all the work to maintain and moderate the instance, it is difficult to let an election institute a policy that you disagree with. (I've started to really disagree with the idea of individuals hosting public instances wholly out of their own financial and time resources. Besides the "truck factor", it is much easier to keep an instance going if everything was already handled by a team and at least partly member supported.)
On the other hand, if the instance encourages those in its membership who can do so to participate in keeping it going, then it is perfectly reasonable to expect the admin team to carry out the decisions voted by the membership. I do realize that not everyone can contribute funds, nor can everyone do the technical labor ... but as @simsa04 will remember, things like writing documentation, contributing in discussions about improving the software, designing and implementing themes, and even marketing-type tasks such as creating a logo and a favicon or promoting the instance to people outside the #Fediverse are beneficial.