Sakurajima.moe is an inclusive Glitch Mastodon server for fans and content creators interested in Japanese anime, manga, games etc. The server is highly moderated to provide a safe, non-toxic environment.
Raphus Social is a better bird site, a safe and inclusive Mastodon server for bringing together open minded people interested in technology, open source, games, and other general geekery.
Old enough to remember when the official Mastodon site used to promote a diverse range of small instances, and made fun of Meta instead of collaborating with it.
This used to be on their front page, long gone now 😢
Instead, we now have a front page telling people to sign up on mastodon.social, an instance list that prioritises large instances, and a blog gushing over how wonderful it is to see Meta federating with them.
"Meta's fediverses", federating with Meta to allow communications, potentially using services from Meta such as automated moderation or ad targeting, and potentially harvesting data on Meta's behalf.
"free fediverses" that reject Meta – and surveillance capitalism more generally
The free fediverses have a lot of advantages over Meta and Meta's fediverses, some of which will be very hard to counter, and clearly have enough critical mass that they'll be just fine.
Here's a set of strategies for the free fediverses to provide a viable alternative to surveillance capitalism. They build on the strengths of today's fediverse at its best – including natural advantages the free fediverses have that Threads and Meta's fediverses will having a very hard time countering – but also are hopefully candid about weaknesses that need to be addressed. It's a long list, so I'll be spreading out over multiple posts; this post currently goes into detail on the first two.
Opposition to Meta and surveillance capitalism is an appealing position. Highlight it!
Focus on consent (including consent-based federation), privacy, and safety
Emphasize "networked communities"
Support concentric federations of instances and communities
Consider "transitively defederating" Meta's fediverses (as well as defederating Threads)
Consider working with people and instances in Meta's fediverses (and Bluesky, Dreamwidth, and other social networks) whose goals and values align with the free fediverses'
Build a sustainable ecosystem
Prepare for Meta's (and their allies') attempts to paint the free fediverses in a bad light
Reduce the dependency on Mastodon
Prioritize accessibility, which is a huge opportunity
Commit to anti-fascist, anti-racist, anti-colonial, and pro-LGBTQIA2S+ principles, policies, practices, and norms for the free fediverses
The notes and accounts from the FediForum in late September suggest that some of "the people who move the fediverse forward", as the conference promotes itself as platforming, are also acutely interested in moving forward the agenda of Meta.
The forum's notes tell the tale. Though a number of topics, including many of genuine benefit, were touched upon, digging through the sessions turns up a path of breadcrumbs that leads straight back to Palo Alto.
Inspiringly, the forum also paused for a moment of self-reflection, in a session essentially grappling with the question, "Why did we only invite white people to the workshop we organized?" https://fediforum.org/2023-09/session/3-c/
Again, the list above is selective, but piecing the mosaic together reveals a picture for a proposed future-fedi that looks a whole lot like something Mark Zuckerberg could work with.
But the central figure, of course, is the surveillance - and this part of the puzzle is already under construction.
The FediForum dedicated no less than four sessions in support of a plan by the IFTAS thinktank for a realtime centralized "AI" surveillance system for the fediverse.
The centralization scheme is being developed in partnership with an entity called Thorn - a for-profit "AI" surveillance privateer which pretends to be a "for the children" NGO. Thorn is hot news lately due to its blatantly corrupt involvement in the EU Chat Control plot, which would destroy the free internet and online privacy in Europe but create a huge business opportunity for Thorn.
The blocklist system IFTAS proposes is called CARIAD - "Consensus Aggregated Retractable IFTAS Allowlist Denylist".
CARIAD's blocking data will be aggregated from two sources. The first is the Facebook Mafia spider-holed at Stanford, which fabricated the CSAM-scare influence operation that roiled the fedi a few months ago. More on them here: https://kolektiva.social/@ophiocephalic/110772380949893619
The second is "an aggregation of at least ten of the largest ActivityPub service providers"; this would seem to be a sugar pill to win over Mastodon gGmbH and a few other megaservers.
The system itself is somewhat similar to that proposed in the Nivenly FSEP plan which has proven so controversial over the last couple of months; except that, instead of centralizing blocklist control with WelshPixie, CARIAD centralizes control with Meta-linked authoritarian techbros.
Other aspects of the IFTAS surveillance scheme are outlined in the slide deck. They include centralized realtime image and video scanning utilizing Thorn's "AI". Transgressive accounts would be auto-reported to authorities. It should also be noted that Thorn technology employs Amazon's facial recognition algorithms.
As a further comment to this prospect, consider that we are now observing how the moderates currently in power in the so-called United States seem to be gift-wrapping policies (KOSA, the border wall, the criminalization of protest and homelessness) for the reactionary extremists who may well succeed them.
Technologies such as Thorn's should be evaluated in the same light. They may - or may not - only detect CSAM for now. But how will they be repurposed if there are drastic political changes in the US or other "democracies"? What beliefs, convictions, sexual or gender identities will come to be mandated as equivalently deviant? Europol already has some ideas: https://balkaninsight.com/2023/09/29/europol-sought-unlimited-data-access-in-online-child-sexual-abuse-regulation/
The workshop notes also reveal that some of the FediForum sessions concerning the IFTAS system featured multiple participants straight from Meta. There's no need to speculate further. The Zuckerberg entity seeks to impose this surveillance technology on the fediverse before federating.
The September FediForum and the solutionist machinations it platformed provide further detail for our understanding of Facebook's designs on the fediverse. The water is gradually being brought to boil, and it remains to be seen if the frogs of the FediPact 🐸 can leap to action in time.
Observing fedi-folk from various marginalized communities snipe at each other over the past week has been devastating and tragic. No conspiracy theory here, but if there were some nefarious plot to weaken the fediverse, provoking a conflict like this one would be an effective way to go about it.
The purpose of this post isn't to further stir the shit. But it's worth taking a look at origins, alternatives and possible consequences in light of the ongoing threat of authoritarian and capitalist recuperation looming over the fedi.
For those interested in the prefiguration of dual power, there is a perfect opportunity right under our noses - the fediverse. Moreover, such praxis may not be so much of a choice, as a necessity. The forces of authoritarian and capitalist recuperation are coming for this network.
So far, it remains largely out of the control radius of corporations, government security services and the fascists poisoning every other online environment. But there are well-resourced elements both without and within working to change that.
Consider the contrast with major capitalist services. This recent story explains how the "U.S." government has attempted to extort a price from TikTok in exchange for allowing it continued operation in the country - its conversion into a domestic mass surveillance tool under the control of state security and military agencies.
Prominent voices advocating for collaboration with the Zuckerberg surveillance entity sure do talk up decentralization a lot, when they're not advocating the subjugation of the fediverse to a single vertical silo of 100 million users. The irony, of course, is that they tend to be admins of instances with tens or even hundreds of thousands. And two of the most prominent control multiple mega-servers, which means they're not just overseeing centralized instances, they're hoarding them.
In contrast, by default Pixelfed servers are limited to a maximum of 1000 users. Though a deep dive into the parameters can override this, its status as a default is an affirmation of the decentralizing ethos. "Thou shalt keep thy instance small."
The microblogging space of the fediverse hasn't been allowed to develop an equivalent consciousness, as the agenda has been set by mega-server admins who drove the conversation around topics like "smooth onboarding". But these aren't evil people; the problem is that they have no real vision.
A comment circulated recently - receipt unfortunately not saved - suggesting that the development of fediverse tools useful to organizing community would be an effective alternative to the "how to funnel in granny" mentality, because then there would be incentives for entire communities to migrate in together; surely a more holistic view of "onboarding" than fretting over how to pick up confused and wandering individuals one at a time. That is the kind of exercise of technical and social imagination we need.
To become viable, the Free Fediverse will need to define itself by not just what it stands against - corporate enclosure by the Meta monstrosity - but by what it stands for. Real and actual decentralization - not just shallow lip service towards it - can be one of those foundational values.
This value can then be encoded into the technology, as it was with Pixelfed; because, let there be no doubt, Zuckerberg is not just absorbing certain of the fediverse's communities, but also certain of its technologies. We'll need replacements, but that's an opportunity to break the current state of developmental stagnation in the predominant microblogging service and ActivityPub. And more important still than protocols and apps are those who create them. Essentially, the Facebook Fediverse gets the techbros, but the Free Fediverse gets the catgirls - which means we win!
Real decentralization - lots and lots and lots of quite small communities, distinct yet federated - has already proven itself to be a better facilitator of good moderation, and will enable another important value to be addressed shortly. But on the moderation issue, a timely real-world example of why decentralization matters is instructive.
There has recently been a calamity visited upon our instance, Kolektiva. Among all of the discussion following its disclosure, there was not a full analysis of its chain of causality. Let's take a flyover of the recent timeline.
April - A massive spambot wave first hits mastodon-dot-social, then spreads quickly through the entire fediverse. Kolektiva, and many other servers, temporarily limit dot-social until the invasion is under control.
Early May - Another spambot attack hits masto-dot-social, and of course, everyone else. This time, an error is made, and a Kolektiva admin defederates rather than limits dot-social. All Kolektiva users irrecoverably lose their follows and followers from dot-social. There is disquiet.
Mid-May - In an attempt to restore the lost follow-follower data, a Kolektiva admin recovers a snapshot backup of the database from before the defederation, an operation which occurs with what turns out to be "spectacularly bad timing".
Yes, there was a fuckup; in fact, a fuckup compounded by another fuckup. But - beyond noting that both mistakes were attempts to do right by the users of the instance - the wellspring of the disaster actually wasn't Kolektiva, but mastodon-dot-social, that mega-server with hundreds of thousands of silo'ed users, open registration and next-to-no-moderation; that irresistible honeypot for spammers and scammers, that 500-pound gorilla with a bullseye painted on its ass.
The mother of all instances has repeatedly proven itself to be a problem for the rest of the fediverse, as in the examples above, when the admins of literally every other server federated with it were put in the position of having to locally address a crisis not of their origination, each an opportunity to make mistakes they would not otherwise have needed to risk.
Smaller instances are easier to moderate, larger instances more difficult. And if masto-dot-social is any indication, a large enough instance becomes a lost cause - take a look at dot-social's local feed and see if you agree. Decentralization distributes moderation agency more effectively, both to admins and even to users. And by scattering targets, it creates network resiliency against threats like spambots and crypto scams. Decentralization isn't just a foss-nerd buzzword, it yields tangible benefits for those seeking safer community online.
great collection of resources, writing, etc for supporters of a Fedi that's free from the clutches of surveillance capitalists. Thanks to @ophiocephalic for putting it together :)
FreeFediverse.org wiki <3 (x-post from https://kbin.social/m/FediPact) ( freefediverse.org )
great collection of resources, writing, etc for supporters of a Fedi that's free from the clutches of surveillance capitalists. Thanks to @ophiocephalic for putting it together :)