@silverpill hey, thanks for sharing the link!
Uncategorized
12
Posts
2
Posters
2
Views
-
@silverpill hey, thanks for sharing the link!
Interledger Foundation is also a W3C member, and can join the Working Group directly. They don't need to make this grant to participate in ActivityPub standards.
The grant is for four subprojects:
1. Fediverse sustainability. What are the economic, psychological and emotional pressures on instance operators and other infrastructure providers? How can we support them?
2. Creator economy. What social, organizational, and technical infrastructure do content creators depend on? What are we missing on the Fediverse?
-
The grant is for four subprojects:
1. Fediverse sustainability. What are the economic, psychological and emotional pressures on instance operators and other infrastructure providers? How can we support them?
2. Creator economy. What social, organizational, and technical infrastructure do content creators depend on? What are we missing on the Fediverse?
3. Cooperatives. social.coop, cosocial.ca and data.coop are all great examples of coops on the fediverse. Does this democratic and participative corporate structure provide an advantage for the Fediverse?
4. Web Monetization. Many Fediverse projects have implemented this API. We'll be identifying two more multimedia projects and helping them use the protocol.
-
3. Cooperatives. social.coop, cosocial.ca and data.coop are all great examples of coops on the fediverse. Does this democratic and participative corporate structure provide an advantage for the Fediverse?
4. Web Monetization. Many Fediverse projects have implemented this API. We'll be identifying two more multimedia projects and helping them use the protocol.
@silverpill this is a restricted grant; we're being paid for the work being done. There's no quid pro quo, except that ILF and SWF both want the Social Web to grow and succeed.
-
@silverpill this is a restricted grant; we're being paid for the work being done. There's no quid pro quo, except that ILF and SWF both want the Social Web to grow and succeed.
@silverpill feel free to tag me next time if you'd like to talk about our work at SWF.
-
@silverpill feel free to tag me next time if you'd like to talk about our work at SWF.
@silverpill oh, and have you met @Jeremiah ? He's an active participant in the ActivityPub community. A great person for you to meet!
Jeremiah, do you have any recommended links for someone interested in ActivityPub to learn more about ILF and WM?
-
@silverpill which people?
-
3. Cooperatives. social.coop, cosocial.ca and data.coop are all great examples of coops on the fediverse. Does this democratic and participative corporate structure provide an advantage for the Fediverse?
4. Web Monetization. Many Fediverse projects have implemented this API. We'll be identifying two more multimedia projects and helping them use the protocol.
@evan @silverpill I'm sorry to tell you, but points 2 and 4 (lack thereof) are exactly why I would say most people that have been here for years, came here in the first place. To get away from corporate accounts spam and blatant attempts at engagement farming. The general lack of money making abilities on the Fediverse is why it is attractive to many. If you want an example of the hole you, and others, are digging themselves into, look at Twitter's monetization scheme and try to browse the timelines for a few minutes. Nothing interesting happens there, it's all engagement farming for a few Musk bucks every month.
And point number one reads like a point about moderation, which SWF has talked about multiple times, and centralizing it in some way. Which goes against the very point of Fediverse/AP and all decentralized social media networks. The fact that IFTAS is one of SWF's partners makes this even more alarming. -
@evan @silverpill I'm sorry to tell you, but points 2 and 4 (lack thereof) are exactly why I would say most people that have been here for years, came here in the first place. To get away from corporate accounts spam and blatant attempts at engagement farming. The general lack of money making abilities on the Fediverse is why it is attractive to many. If you want an example of the hole you, and others, are digging themselves into, look at Twitter's monetization scheme and try to browse the timelines for a few minutes. Nothing interesting happens there, it's all engagement farming for a few Musk bucks every month.
And point number one reads like a point about moderation, which SWF has talked about multiple times, and centralizing it in some way. Which goes against the very point of Fediverse/AP and all decentralized social media networks. The fact that IFTAS is one of SWF's partners makes this even more alarming.@phnt so, for me, the social web is about choice. If you don't want to see creator content, you shouldn't have to.
I do think that the idea of someone deciding what content is or isn't allowed on the Fediverse is antithetical to that. If you don't want to follow @randahl or @taylorlorenz or whoever, don't.
But you also don't get to decide whether *I* follow them.
-
@phnt so, for me, the social web is about choice. If you don't want to see creator content, you shouldn't have to.
I do think that the idea of someone deciding what content is or isn't allowed on the Fediverse is antithetical to that. If you don't want to follow @randahl or @taylorlorenz or whoever, don't.
But you also don't get to decide whether *I* follow them.
@phnt for sustainability, I don't think that moderation is the only pressure on instance operators, but it's one.
I don't know where you got the idea that SWF has talked about centralising moderation.
As for IFTAS, they are awesome. What's your beef with them? They do great work.
-
@phnt for sustainability, I don't think that moderation is the only pressure on instance operators, but it's one.
I don't know where you got the idea that SWF has talked about centralising moderation.
As for IFTAS, they are awesome. What's your beef with them? They do great work.
@evan I agree that you should be able to see content you want, and don't see content you don't want. Nobody should have a say in that except the user. It's more of a network culture issue though. That content isn't generally liked by people on the Fediverse, so you should expect large parts of the network not being happy about that content arriving here. Same with the more "corporate" content, but even worse. Hetzner despite hosting a good chunk of the Fediverse wasn't welcomed well last year, when they joined some Mastodon server. And you probably already familiar with the pushback caused by Meta/Facebook/Threads joining the network and the secret NDAd meeting that happened before it joined.
This who should have the say though can be expanded even more. Both accounts you tagged are on mastodon.social, but neither of them will actually see any of my posts, because some random moderator I never talked to decided to deactivate my remote account there. Why should a random person I never talked be able to decide who sees my posts and who I can follow on mastodon.social. To be clear, I'm not advocating for some absolutely moderation-less network, but it is a valid extension of that logic. Which brings me to IFTAS.
IFTAS is specifically the centralized moderation thing I talked about regarding SWF. They are a non-profit ran by at least in the past very opionated people (one of which being the Nexus of Privacy author jdp23; their current members aren't listed I think). They run an auto-defederation tool whose sources aren't publicly published anywhere I could find and the actual full lists isn't publicly published anywhere either. Only the "DNI" one is, which as I understand is a small chunk of the full one. They require you to sign in with an admin account of your instance, to their portal in order to manage the tool and even figure out what the list is. Being this non-transparent on a decentralized open network should raise eyebrows of most people. Which is why I'm not hesitant to call them centralized moderation.
I oppose any kind of this "moderation" where biases are high and transparency is nil. That includes IFTAS and all other lists. Moderation should be done on a case-by-case basis, by the administrators/moderators of an instance and not by trusting a random 3rd party with zero transparency to do it for you. If it should exist, I don't think it should, then it should at least be completely decentralized, but all attempts at that failed. Look how fediblock turned out and when someone from the Mastodon side wanted to make an alternative, where admins/moderators could add ratings to other instances in an attempt to build a more reputable list compared to Oliphant's one, GardenFence, Seirdy's one or even IFTAS, they got harassed by various groups of these listed blocklists to the point of abandoning the attempt and going away from Fedi for at least some time. I forgot what the project was called, sorry, otherwise I would at least link it. Any reasonable attempt has so far turned into a witch hunt, where I can almost guarantee that one of the biggest sources of stress for Fediverse administrators isn't running the instance, but fearing of being featured on something like fediblock, where witch hunts are everywhere and reasonable moderation decisions nowhere to be found.
As to when SWF talked about moderation, here are a few posts. The linked blog posts are mostly sound, though. It's the IFTAS part I don't like at all.
https://socialwebfoundation.org/2025/03/27/defederation-on-the-fediverse/
https://socialwebfoundation.org/2025/01/12/content-policy-on-the-social-web/
The sustainability part minus moderation is an easy one to solve. There should be more instances, preferably less Mastodon ones, so that costs aren't as high and moderation spreads out more. mastodon.social having over 300K users is the worst thing that could have happened.
Also please don't untag @silverpill unless he specifically requests to do so. I want a healthy discussion about valid concerns and not a half-split thread. -
@evan I agree that you should be able to see content you want, and don't see content you don't want. Nobody should have a say in that except the user. It's more of a network culture issue though. That content isn't generally liked by people on the Fediverse, so you should expect large parts of the network not being happy about that content arriving here. Same with the more "corporate" content, but even worse. Hetzner despite hosting a good chunk of the Fediverse wasn't welcomed well last year, when they joined some Mastodon server. And you probably already familiar with the pushback caused by Meta/Facebook/Threads joining the network and the secret NDAd meeting that happened before it joined.
This who should have the say though can be expanded even more. Both accounts you tagged are on mastodon.social, but neither of them will actually see any of my posts, because some random moderator I never talked to decided to deactivate my remote account there. Why should a random person I never talked be able to decide who sees my posts and who I can follow on mastodon.social. To be clear, I'm not advocating for some absolutely moderation-less network, but it is a valid extension of that logic. Which brings me to IFTAS.
IFTAS is specifically the centralized moderation thing I talked about regarding SWF. They are a non-profit ran by at least in the past very opionated people (one of which being the Nexus of Privacy author jdp23; their current members aren't listed I think). They run an auto-defederation tool whose sources aren't publicly published anywhere I could find and the actual full lists isn't publicly published anywhere either. Only the "DNI" one is, which as I understand is a small chunk of the full one. They require you to sign in with an admin account of your instance, to their portal in order to manage the tool and even figure out what the list is. Being this non-transparent on a decentralized open network should raise eyebrows of most people. Which is why I'm not hesitant to call them centralized moderation.
I oppose any kind of this "moderation" where biases are high and transparency is nil. That includes IFTAS and all other lists. Moderation should be done on a case-by-case basis, by the administrators/moderators of an instance and not by trusting a random 3rd party with zero transparency to do it for you. If it should exist, I don't think it should, then it should at least be completely decentralized, but all attempts at that failed. Look how fediblock turned out and when someone from the Mastodon side wanted to make an alternative, where admins/moderators could add ratings to other instances in an attempt to build a more reputable list compared to Oliphant's one, GardenFence, Seirdy's one or even IFTAS, they got harassed by various groups of these listed blocklists to the point of abandoning the attempt and going away from Fedi for at least some time. I forgot what the project was called, sorry, otherwise I would at least link it. Any reasonable attempt has so far turned into a witch hunt, where I can almost guarantee that one of the biggest sources of stress for Fediverse administrators isn't running the instance, but fearing of being featured on something like fediblock, where witch hunts are everywhere and reasonable moderation decisions nowhere to be found.
As to when SWF talked about moderation, here are a few posts. The linked blog posts are mostly sound, though. It's the IFTAS part I don't like at all.
https://socialwebfoundation.org/2025/03/27/defederation-on-the-fediverse/
https://socialwebfoundation.org/2025/01/12/content-policy-on-the-social-web/
The sustainability part minus moderation is an easy one to solve. There should be more instances, preferably less Mastodon ones, so that costs aren't as high and moderation spreads out more. mastodon.social having over 300K users is the worst thing that could have happened.
Also please don't untag @silverpill unless he specifically requests to do so. I want a healthy discussion about valid concerns and not a half-split thread.@phnt I didn't ask for your permission on how I reply.
It sounds like you get blocked a lot. Maybe you should think about why that is.
Good luck on the Fediverse!
Gli ultimi otto messaggi ricevuti dalla Federazione
-
@antoniobruno verranno sostituiti dai "piccoli kkk"
-
A me piace sentire le cose cantare.
Voi le toccate: diventano rigide e mute ... https://cctm.website/rainer-maria-rilke-a-me-piace-sentire-le-cose-cantare/Rainer Maria Rilke
#rainermariarilke #poesia #cctmwebsite #anoipiaceleggere #leggere
-
Il nuovo decreto Sicurezza del governo serve a poco. E Nordio tira in ballo le Brigate Rosse https://www.editorialedomani.it/politica/italia/nuovo-decreto-sicurezza-governo-meloni-inutile-fermo-scudo-penale-nordio-brigate-rosse-rcp90tdm
-
That is how I felt too, after FOSDEM :smiley:
I was lucky that there are many conferences near me in between. FediCon and FediMTL (both new as of 2025 and 2026 respectively!)
But even in between those there is @j12t@j12t.social's FediForum, which is coming up in just over a month! oh actually, it is an un-workshop, not the un-conference, but still should be good!
-
A Meloni resta solo un po’ di propaganda. Grazie a Mattarella https://www.editorialedomani.it/politica/italia/decreto-sicurezza-meloni-resta-propaganda-grazie-mattarella-wly2kkjr
-
I miss FOSDEM already. I can't wait for next year's FOSDEM!
-
@_elena there's also @EC_DIGIT_director_general
-
#diarioestremadura - 4
Finalmente ha smesso di piovere. Almeno per oggi e domani, poi il diluvio tornerà. Oggi visita a #Badajoz. Qualche fiume esondato perché enorme. Città bella, tranquillissima, medievale con arte anche moresca, alcune vie novecentesche e una cattedrale da urlo. Si mangia solo carne qui.
Nel pomeriggio acquazzoni e raffiche a 100 km/h; non posso ancora usare la Canon.Purtroppo tutta l'acqua che vedo qui andrà a Siviglia che già è alluvionata, io ci vado dopodomani. 🤞
