#cwmeta — Public Fediverse posts
Live and recent posts from across the Fediverse tagged #cwmeta, aggregated by home.social.
-
@TeflonTrout :bc: he/him @Sharp Leaves Still, forcing Mastodon's culture and Mastodon's unwritten rules upon literally everyone in the Fediverse is bad.
Maybe you haven't heard about this yet, but: The Fediverse is not only Mastodon. It has never been only Mastodon. It didn't even start with Mastodon. And it doesn't entirely work like Mastodon either.
For starters, this means that just because you see it on Mastodon, it didn't necessarily originate on Mastodon.
There are places in the Fediverse that are vastly older than Mastodon, and that are very different from Mastodon. Thus, they have their own culture, based on their own technology and their own features and where their users came from, and largely without any influences from Mastodon.
The oldest still existing server software in the Fediverse is not Mastodon from 2016. It's Friendica (https://friendi.ca, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friendica, https://joinfediverse.wiki/Friendica). Friendica is essentially a mixture of a Facebook alternative and fully-featured long-form blogging. No Twitter or Mastodon influence anywhere. And Friendica first came out in May, 2010, five years and eight months before Mastodon.
Friendica did not intrude into the Mastodon Fediverse that was created by Eugen Rochko as a Mastodon-only network. Mastodon was born into an already existing Fediverse that consisted of at least Friendica, Hubzilla (https://hubzilla.org, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubzilla, https://joinfediverse.wiki/Hubzilla) and GNU social (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_social; now defunct).
Here's how Friendica differs from Mastodon in ways that may disturb Mastodon hardliners:- Mastodon is hard-coded to 500 characters. This character limit is deeply engrained into Mastodon's culture.
Friendica doesn't have an arbitrary character limit; it's limited by the maximum size of the database field for the post text. Currently, this is 16,777,215 characters. Thus, Friendica doesn't have keeping messages short in its culture, it never has, and it never will. - Mastodon users tend to be eager to block anyone who doesn't cut long posts into pieces of no more than 500 characters each.
I know at least one Friendica veteran who blocks everyone upon first strike who does cut long posts into annoying strings of tiny chunks. - Mastodon introduced a CW field in 2017.
Friendica has had the exact same field as a summary/abstract field since its own beginning in 2010. That, and Friendica has always had a much more efficient way of handling CWs, one that Mastodon itself adopted with version 4.0 in October, 2022. Thus, by its technology and culture, Friendica users despise misusing their abstract field to force the same CW upon everyone out there with a hot, flaming passion.
So if you see someone "misusing" the CW field for "a subject or a summary or whatever that is," that might not be a clueless Mastodon user. Instead, it might be a Friendica user who has been around for a dozen years longer than you, who is used to living by Friendica's culture, and who knows tons more about the Fediverse than you do. - Friendica users are much less likely to add alt-texts to their images. That's for two reasons.
One, Friendica's culture is not an idealised version of pre-Musk, very-left-wing Twitter's culture. It does not include attacking and punishing everyone who doesn't add 100% hand-written, 100% accurate, sufficiently detailed alt-texts to their images.
Two, Friendica handles images drastically differently from Mastodon. Mastodon always has a nifty little entry field for alt-texts whenever you attach an image. On Friendica, images are embedded into posts rather than attached to them, like in a blog post. And oftentimes, you literally have to program the alt-text into the raw image embedding markup code. - On Mastodon, it's considered intrusive and reply-guying to reply to someone who hasn't mentioned you, and to whom you aren't mutually connected. You couldn't possibly have received the toot that you're replying to otherwise.
On Friendica, that's perfectly normal. Friendica doesn't show you single messages by default. It always shows you the entire conversation thread, all the way up to the start post, with all branches. Thus, neither Friendica's technology nor Friendica's culture rules out replying to any comment in the thread. - Mastodon has only just introduced Twitter-style quote-posts a few months ago. With a safety feature that only works on Mastodon and GoToSocial for fear of that feature being used for harassment and dogpiling just like on Twitter. And because literally everyone on Mastodon comes from Twitter, it's actually being used for harassment and dogpiling.
Friendica has had that very same feature since its inception in 2010, over a decade and a half longer. It has never not had this feature. It has always been able to quote-post any public message in the Fediverse. But since Friendica is not entirely populated by former Twitter users, it hasn't been used for harassment or dogpiling even once. It's only used to forward content. For most of the time, it literally was the only available way to forward a message. - Mastodon users tend to be very protective and defensive about their allegedly Mastodon-only Fediverse.
Friendica users are used to being able to connect with everything that moves and then some. It's one of Friendica's key features that it speaks a whole lot of protocols, not just ActivityPub.
Whereas Mastodon users see Mastodon as a "decentralised walled garden", Friendica users see Friendica as the gateway to the whole federated social Web plus some places that aren't, strictly speaking, federated. - Mastodon users will staunchly insist that "Fediverse" and "Mastodon" essentially mean the same because they believe they do. They will attack anyone who claims otherwise.
Friendica users will staunchly insist that there's a huge difference between "Fediverse" and "Mastodon" because they actually know there is one. They will lecture anyone who claims otherwise.
Of course, from a Mastodon point of view, it's both tempting and fully justified to tell the Friendica users that this is the Mastodon Fediverse, and that they will have to adapt the Mastodon culture and abolish their own culture or be thrown out. But for one, Mastodon's culture doesn't fit Friendica's technology.
Besides, that'd literally be like European settlers holding Native Americans at gunpoint and forcing them to give up their own culture, adopt European culture and convert to Catholic Christianity or else. The only difference is that European settlers, unlike the Mastodon users, did not think that they were there first, and that everyone else is an intruder.
I mean, sure, go ahead and attack anyone who doesn't strictly live by Mastodon's culture and Mastodon's rules if you think you have to. But prepare for a whole lot of defence and even counter-attacks from Pleroma, Akkoma, Misskey, Iceshrimp-JS, Iceshrimp.NET, Sharkey, GoToSocial, Hollo, snac2, Mitra, Socialhome, Friendica, Hubzilla, (streams), Forte and the rest of the non-Mastodon Fediverse.
CC: @Jan Wildeboer
#Long #LongPost #CWLong #CWLongPost #FediMeta #FediverseMeta #CWFediMeta #CWFediverseMeta #AltText #AltTextMeta #CWAltTextMeta #CW #CWs #CWMeta #ContentWarning #ContentWarnings #ContentWarningMeta #CharacterLimit #CharacterLimits #CharacterLimitMeta #CWCharacterLimitMeta #500Characters #QuotePost #QuotePosts #QuoteTweet #QuoteTweets #QuoteToot #QuoteToots #QuoteBoost #QuoteBoosts #QuotedShares #QuotePostDebate #QuoteTootDebate #Fediverse #Mastodon #Friendica #NotOnlyMastodon #FediverseIsNotMastodon #MastodonIsNotTheFediverse - Mastodon is hard-coded to 500 characters. This character limit is deeply engrained into Mastodon's culture.
-
@TeflonTrout :bc: he/him @Sharp Leaves Still, forcing Mastodon's culture and Mastodon's unwritten rules upon literally everyone in the Fediverse is bad.
Maybe you haven't heard about this yet, but: The Fediverse is not only Mastodon. It has never been only Mastodon. It didn't even start with Mastodon. And it doesn't entirely work like Mastodon either.
For starters, this means that just because you see it on Mastodon, it didn't necessarily originate on Mastodon.
There are places in the Fediverse that are vastly older than Mastodon, and that are very different from Mastodon. Thus, they have their own culture, based on their own technology and their own features and where their users came from, and largely without any influences from Mastodon.
The oldest still existing server software in the Fediverse is not Mastodon from 2016. It's Friendica (https://friendi.ca, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friendica, https://joinfediverse.wiki/Friendica). Friendica is essentially a mixture of a Facebook alternative and fully-featured long-form blogging. No Twitter or Mastodon influence anywhere. And Friendica first came out in May, 2010, five years and eight months before Mastodon.
Friendica did not intrude into the Mastodon Fediverse that was created by Eugen Rochko as a Mastodon-only network. Mastodon was born into an already existing Fediverse that consisted of at least Friendica, Hubzilla (https://hubzilla.org, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubzilla, https://joinfediverse.wiki/Hubzilla) and GNU social (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_social; now defunct).
Here's how Friendica differs from Mastodon in ways that may disturb Mastodon hardliners:- Mastodon is hard-coded to 500 characters. This character limit is deeply engrained into Mastodon's culture.
Friendica doesn't have an arbitrary character limit; it's limited by the maximum size of the database field for the post text. Currently, this is 16,777,215 characters. Thus, Friendica doesn't have keeping messages short in its culture, it never has, and it never will. - Mastodon users tend to be eager to block anyone who doesn't cut long posts into pieces of no more than 500 characters each.
I know at least one Friendica veteran who blocks everyone upon first strike who does cut long posts into annoying strings of tiny chunks. - Mastodon introduced a CW field in 2017.
Friendica has had the exact same field as a summary/abstract field since its own beginning in 2010. That, and Friendica has always had a much more efficient way of handling CWs, one that Mastodon itself adopted with version 4.0 in October, 2022. Thus, by its technology and culture, Friendica users despise misusing their abstract field to force the same CW upon everyone out there with a hot, flaming passion.
So if you see someone "misusing" the CW field for "a subject or a summary or whatever that is," that might not be a clueless Mastodon user. Instead, it might be a Friendica user who has been around for a dozen years longer than you, who is used to living by Friendica's culture, and who knows tons more about the Fediverse than you do. - Friendica users are much less likely to add alt-texts to their images. That's for two reasons.
One, Friendica's culture is not an idealised version of pre-Musk, very-left-wing Twitter's culture. It does not include attacking and punishing everyone who doesn't add 100% hand-written, 100% accurate, sufficiently detailed alt-texts to their images.
Two, Friendica handles images drastically differently from Mastodon. Mastodon always has a nifty little entry field for alt-texts whenever you attach an image. On Friendica, images are embedded into posts rather than attached to them, like in a blog post. And oftentimes, you literally have to program the alt-text into the raw image embedding markup code. - On Mastodon, it's considered intrusive and reply-guying to reply to someone who hasn't mentioned you, and to whom you aren't mutually connected. You couldn't possibly have received the toot that you're replying to otherwise.
On Friendica, that's perfectly normal. Friendica doesn't show you single messages by default. It always shows you the entire conversation thread, all the way up to the start post, with all branches. Thus, neither Friendica's technology nor Friendica's culture rules out replying to any comment in the thread. - Mastodon has only just introduced Twitter-style quote-posts a few months ago. With a safety feature that only works on Mastodon and GoToSocial for fear of that feature being used for harassment and dogpiling just like on Twitter. And because literally everyone on Mastodon comes from Twitter, it's actually being used for harassment and dogpiling.
Friendica has had that very same feature since its inception in 2010, over a decade and a half longer. It has never not had this feature. It has always been able to quote-post any public message in the Fediverse. But since Friendica is not entirely populated by former Twitter users, it hasn't been used for harassment or dogpiling even once. It's only used to forward content. For most of the time, it literally was the only available way to forward a message. - Mastodon users tend to be very protective and defensive about their allegedly Mastodon-only Fediverse.
Friendica users are used to being able to connect with everything that moves and then some. It's one of Friendica's key features that it speaks a whole lot of protocols, not just ActivityPub.
Whereas Mastodon users see Mastodon as a "decentralised walled garden", Friendica users see Friendica as the gateway to the whole federated social Web plus some places that aren't, strictly speaking, federated. - Mastodon users will staunchly insist that "Fediverse" and "Mastodon" essentially mean the same because they believe they do. They will attack anyone who claims otherwise.
Friendica users will staunchly insist that there's a huge difference between "Fediverse" and "Mastodon" because they actually know there is one. They will lecture anyone who claims otherwise.
Of course, from a Mastodon point of view, it's both tempting and fully justified to tell the Friendica users that this is the Mastodon Fediverse, and that they will have to adapt the Mastodon culture and abolish their own culture or be thrown out. But for one, Mastodon's culture doesn't fit Friendica's technology.
Besides, that'd literally be like European settlers holding Native Americans at gunpoint and forcing them to give up their own culture, adopt European culture and convert to Catholic Christianity or else. The only difference is that European settlers, unlike the Mastodon users, did not think that they were there first, and that everyone else is an intruder.
I mean, sure, go ahead and attack anyone who doesn't strictly live by Mastodon's culture and Mastodon's rules if you think you have to. But prepare for a whole lot of defence and even counter-attacks from Pleroma, Akkoma, Misskey, Iceshrimp-JS, Iceshrimp.NET, Sharkey, GoToSocial, Hollo, snac2, Mitra, Socialhome, Friendica, Hubzilla, (streams), Forte and the rest of the non-Mastodon Fediverse.
CC: @Jan Wildeboer
#Long #LongPost #CWLong #CWLongPost #FediMeta #FediverseMeta #CWFediMeta #CWFediverseMeta #AltText #AltTextMeta #CWAltTextMeta #CW #CWs #CWMeta #ContentWarning #ContentWarnings #ContentWarningMeta #CharacterLimit #CharacterLimits #CharacterLimitMeta #CWCharacterLimitMeta #500Characters #QuotePost #QuotePosts #QuoteTweet #QuoteTweets #QuoteToot #QuoteToots #QuoteBoost #QuoteBoosts #QuotedShares #QuotePostDebate #QuoteTootDebate #Fediverse #Mastodon #Friendica #NotOnlyMastodon #FediverseIsNotMastodon #MastodonIsNotTheFediverse - Mastodon is hard-coded to 500 characters. This character limit is deeply engrained into Mastodon's culture.
-
CW: Gute Bildbeschreibungen bringen einen sehr viel größeren Aufwand mit sich, als ihr vielleicht glaubt; CW: lang (über 6.000 Zeichen), Fediverse-Meta, Fediverse-über-Mastodon-hinaus-Meta, Zeichenlimit-Meta, Inhaltswarnungen-Meta/Content-Warning-Meta, Hashtag-Meta, Alt-Text-Meta, Bildbeschreibungen-Meta, KI erwähnt (KI-)
(Ausnahmsweise auch mal auf Deutsch. Die englische Version ist hier.)
Bildbeschreibungen sind wichtig im Fediverse, zumindest wenn eure Posts möglicherweise auf Mastodon landen werden. Aber geht es nur um Bildbeschreibungen ganz allgemein? Geht es nur darum, überhaupt Bildbeschreibungen zu haben? Oder geht es auch um die Qualität der Bildbeschreibungen?
Blinde oder sehbehinderte Nutzer sagen, daß alles besser ist als nichts. Aber seien wir mal ehrlich, der Dateiname der Bilddatei als Alt-Text ist nutzlos. Eine Kopie des Post-Texts im Alt-Text auch; mindestens eine Handy-App für Mastodon macht das scheinbar automatisch. Irgendwelcher Kauderwelsch, der in den Alt-Text reingeschrieben wird, damit da irgendein Alt-Text steht, ist auch nutzlos.
Also schreibt ihr eine kurze Bildbeschreibung für euren Alt-Text. Das sollte viel besser sein als nichts.
Und dann werdet ihr kritisiert und sanktioniert, weil eure Bildbeschreibung nicht detailliert genug ist.
Weil ihr eine längere Bildbeschreibung nicht schreiben könnt oder wollt, überlaßt ihr das einer KI.
Und dann werdet ihr kritisiert und sanktioniert, weil eure Bildbeschreibung offensichtlicher KI-Slop ist. Die KI ist ungenau, sie halluziniert, sie identifizert Sachen falsch, und sie läßt immer noch Details aus.
Okay, also setzt ihr euch hin und steckt einen Haufen Zeit und Aufwand in eine handgeschriebene Bildbeschreibung, die gleichermaßen akkurat und detailliert ist. Zumindest glaubt ihr das.
Und es könnte immer noch jemand kommen und euch kritisieren und/oder sanktionieren, weil ihr bestimmte Details ausgelassen habt.
Wenn ihr eure Bildbeschreibung nicht zu deren Zufriedenheit in Ordnung bringt, dann werdet ihr als ableistisch beschimpft und blockiert mit öffentlichem Trara, damit möglichst viele andere Nutzer euch auch blockieren mögen.
Nun entwickeln sich die Mindestanforderungen für Bildbeschreibungen über die Jahre immer weiter. Was heute wichtig ist, war vor zwei Jahren nicht unbedingt wichtig. Was heute unwichtig ist, kann in zwei oder fünf Jahren durchaus auf einmal wichtig sein. Heute schon kritisieren Alt-Text-Aktivisten Bildposts, die schon etliche Jahre alt sind, aufgrund von deren Bildbeschreibungen, die sie als suboptimal ansehen. Das bedeutet, daß die Bildbeschreibungen, die ihr heute schreibt, noch so lange gut genug bleiben müssen, wie eure Bilderposts verfügbar bleiben. Falls nicht, viel Spaß dabei, durch alle eure alten Bilderposts zu gehen, sie alle zu editieren und bei allen die Bildbeschreibungen an die aktuellen Mindestanforderungen anzupassen.
Es gibt nur eine Möglichkeit, langfristig vor Mastodons Alt-Text-Polizei sicher zu sein: Als allererstes müßt ihr euch aufschlauen über die vielen Regeln und Richtlinien für Alt-Texte und Bildbeschreibungen, und darüber gibt's dutzendweise englischsprachige Websites. Man kann unmöglich im voraus wissen, welche dieser Regeln von irgendjemandem bei der Alt-Text-Polizei irgendwann in der Zukunft für zwingend erforderlich erklärt werden, also solltet ihr sie jetzt schon bis aufs i-Tüpfelchen einhalten. Wenn zwei davon sich gegenseitig widersprechen, müßt ihr natürlich wissen, welche davon ihr einzuhalten habt.
Ihr müßt auch wissen, daß die Anforderungen und Qualitätsstandards für gute Alt-Texte und Bildbeschreibungen auf Mastodon ganz andere sind als im ganzen Rest des Web. Was fürs Web gut genug ist, ist nicht zwingend auch gut genug für Mastodon.
Zu guter Letzt müßt ihr euer Publikum kennen. Und normalerweise kann jeder irgendwo im Fediverse oder sogar im Web euer Publikum sein. Es gibt nur ganz wenige Orte im Fediverse, wo ihr steuern könnt, wer in der Lage sein wird, euer Zeugs zu lesen, und Mastodon gehört nicht dazu. Ihr müßt euer Publikum kennen, und ihr müßt zumindest einschätzen können, was euer Publikum über den Inhalt eures Bildes weiß, was es nicht weiß und was es wissen muß. Wenn euer Publikum nicht zwingend weiß, was etwas ist, erklärt es, aber bitte im Post-Text und nicht im Alt-Text! Wenn euer Publikum nicht zwingend weiß, wie etwas aussieht, das aber vielleicht wissen will, dann beschreibt es.
Bei meinen eigenen Bildern ist meine Strategie, für jedes Bild zwei Beschreibungen zu schreiben. Die eine ist die kurze Bildbeschreibung; die kommt in den Alt-Text. Die werde ich in Zukunft auf maximal 512 Zeichen beschränken, weil Misskey und seine Forks Alt-Texte, die länger als 512 Zeichen sind, löschen. Die andere ist die lange Bildbeschreibung; die kommt in den Post-Text. Die lange Bildbeschreibung ist volldetailliert, sie enthält alle Erklärungen, die zum Verständnis des Bildes und seiner Beschreibungen nötig sind, und sie enthält Transkripte von jedem einzelnen Stück Text, das es irgendwo innerhalb der Grenzen des Bildes gibt, egal, ob auf dem Bild lesbar oder nicht.
Memes zu posten, ist ein Stück weit einfacher. Es gibt nur eine Bildbeschreibung, die hoffentlich kurz genug für den Alt-Text ist. Aber trotzdem habe ich einen ganzen Haufen Sachen zu erklären, und weil ich mich nicht immer auf Links wie nach KnowYourMeme verlassen kann, muß ich oft selbst eine ganze Menge Erklärungen in den Post schreiben.
Idealerweise ist das Schlimmste, was mir passieren kann, daß ich dafür kritisiert werde, daß mein Alt-Text die 200-Zeichen-Marke oder mein Post die 500-Zeichen-Marke überschreitet, oder daß ich für das Letztere blockiert werde. Das Risiko, daß das passiert, reduziere ich mit einer Zusammenfassung, die eine Langer-Post-Inhaltswarnung mit der ungefähren Länge des Post enthält, und den Hashtags #Long, #LongPost, #CWLong, #CWLongPost, #LangerPost und #CWLangerPost, die dann gefiltert werden können.
Aber ich hoffe, daß keiner sagen kann, ich hätte mich nicht genug angestrengt.
#FediMeta #FediverseMeta #CWFediMeta #CWFediverseMeta #Zeichenlimit #Zeichenlimits #ZeichenlimitMeta #CWZeichenlimitMeta #500Zeichen #CW #CWs #CWMeta #ContentWarning #ContentWarnings #ContentWarningMeta #Hashtag #Hashtags #HashtagMeta #CWHashtagMeta #AltText #AltTextMeta #CWAltTextMeta #Bildbeschreibung #Bildbeschreibungen #BildbeschreibungenMeta #CWBildbeschreibungenMeta -
CW: Gute Bildbeschreibungen bringen einen sehr viel größeren Aufwand mit sich, als ihr vielleicht glaubt; CW: lang (über 6.000 Zeichen), Fediverse-Meta, Fediverse-über-Mastodon-hinaus-Meta, Zeichenlimit-Meta, Inhaltswarnungen-Meta/Content-Warning-Meta, Hashtag-Meta, Alt-Text-Meta, Bildbeschreibungen-Meta, KI erwähnt (KI-)
(Ausnahmsweise auch mal auf Deutsch. Die englische Version ist hier.)
Bildbeschreibungen sind wichtig im Fediverse, zumindest wenn eure Posts möglicherweise auf Mastodon landen werden. Aber geht es nur um Bildbeschreibungen ganz allgemein? Geht es nur darum, überhaupt Bildbeschreibungen zu haben? Oder geht es auch um die Qualität der Bildbeschreibungen?
Blinde oder sehbehinderte Nutzer sagen, daß alles besser ist als nichts. Aber seien wir mal ehrlich, der Dateiname der Bilddatei als Alt-Text ist nutzlos. Eine Kopie des Post-Texts im Alt-Text auch; mindestens eine Handy-App für Mastodon macht das scheinbar automatisch. Irgendwelcher Kauderwelsch, der in den Alt-Text reingeschrieben wird, damit da irgendein Alt-Text steht, ist auch nutzlos.
Also schreibt ihr eine kurze Bildbeschreibung für euren Alt-Text. Das sollte viel besser sein als nichts.
Und dann werdet ihr kritisiert und sanktioniert, weil eure Bildbeschreibung nicht detailliert genug ist.
Weil ihr eine längere Bildbeschreibung nicht schreiben könnt oder wollt, überlaßt ihr das einer KI.
Und dann werdet ihr kritisiert und sanktioniert, weil eure Bildbeschreibung offensichtlicher KI-Slop ist. Die KI ist ungenau, sie halluziniert, sie identifizert Sachen falsch, und sie läßt immer noch Details aus.
Okay, also setzt ihr euch hin und steckt einen Haufen Zeit und Aufwand in eine handgeschriebene Bildbeschreibung, die gleichermaßen akkurat und detailliert ist. Zumindest glaubt ihr das.
Und es könnte immer noch jemand kommen und euch kritisieren und/oder sanktionieren, weil ihr bestimmte Details ausgelassen habt.
Wenn ihr eure Bildbeschreibung nicht zu deren Zufriedenheit in Ordnung bringt, dann werdet ihr als ableistisch beschimpft und blockiert mit öffentlichem Trara, damit möglichst viele andere Nutzer euch auch blockieren mögen.
Nun entwickeln sich die Mindestanforderungen für Bildbeschreibungen über die Jahre immer weiter. Was heute wichtig ist, war vor zwei Jahren nicht unbedingt wichtig. Was heute unwichtig ist, kann in zwei oder fünf Jahren durchaus auf einmal wichtig sein. Heute schon kritisieren Alt-Text-Aktivisten Bildposts, die schon etliche Jahre alt sind, aufgrund von deren Bildbeschreibungen, die sie als suboptimal ansehen. Das bedeutet, daß die Bildbeschreibungen, die ihr heute schreibt, noch so lange gut genug bleiben müssen, wie eure Bilderposts verfügbar bleiben. Falls nicht, viel Spaß dabei, durch alle eure alten Bilderposts zu gehen, sie alle zu editieren und bei allen die Bildbeschreibungen an die aktuellen Mindestanforderungen anzupassen.
Es gibt nur eine Möglichkeit, langfristig vor Mastodons Alt-Text-Polizei sicher zu sein: Als allererstes müßt ihr euch aufschlauen über die vielen Regeln und Richtlinien für Alt-Texte und Bildbeschreibungen, und darüber gibt's dutzendweise englischsprachige Websites. Man kann unmöglich im voraus wissen, welche dieser Regeln von irgendjemandem bei der Alt-Text-Polizei irgendwann in der Zukunft für zwingend erforderlich erklärt werden, also solltet ihr sie jetzt schon bis aufs i-Tüpfelchen einhalten. Wenn zwei davon sich gegenseitig widersprechen, müßt ihr natürlich wissen, welche davon ihr einzuhalten habt.
Ihr müßt auch wissen, daß die Anforderungen und Qualitätsstandards für gute Alt-Texte und Bildbeschreibungen auf Mastodon ganz andere sind als im ganzen Rest des Web. Was fürs Web gut genug ist, ist nicht zwingend auch gut genug für Mastodon.
Zu guter Letzt müßt ihr euer Publikum kennen. Und normalerweise kann jeder irgendwo im Fediverse oder sogar im Web euer Publikum sein. Es gibt nur ganz wenige Orte im Fediverse, wo ihr steuern könnt, wer in der Lage sein wird, euer Zeugs zu lesen, und Mastodon gehört nicht dazu. Ihr müßt euer Publikum kennen, und ihr müßt zumindest einschätzen können, was euer Publikum über den Inhalt eures Bildes weiß, was es nicht weiß und was es wissen muß. Wenn euer Publikum nicht zwingend weiß, was etwas ist, erklärt es, aber bitte im Post-Text und nicht im Alt-Text! Wenn euer Publikum nicht zwingend weiß, wie etwas aussieht, das aber vielleicht wissen will, dann beschreibt es.
Bei meinen eigenen Bildern ist meine Strategie, für jedes Bild zwei Beschreibungen zu schreiben. Die eine ist die kurze Bildbeschreibung; die kommt in den Alt-Text. Die werde ich in Zukunft auf maximal 512 Zeichen beschränken, weil Misskey und seine Forks Alt-Texte, die länger als 512 Zeichen sind, löschen. Die andere ist die lange Bildbeschreibung; die kommt in den Post-Text. Die lange Bildbeschreibung ist volldetailliert, sie enthält alle Erklärungen, die zum Verständnis des Bildes und seiner Beschreibungen nötig sind, und sie enthält Transkripte von jedem einzelnen Stück Text, das es irgendwo innerhalb der Grenzen des Bildes gibt, egal, ob auf dem Bild lesbar oder nicht.
Memes zu posten, ist ein Stück weit einfacher. Es gibt nur eine Bildbeschreibung, die hoffentlich kurz genug für den Alt-Text ist. Aber trotzdem habe ich einen ganzen Haufen Sachen zu erklären, und weil ich mich nicht immer auf Links wie nach KnowYourMeme verlassen kann, muß ich oft selbst eine ganze Menge Erklärungen in den Post schreiben.
Idealerweise ist das Schlimmste, was mir passieren kann, daß ich dafür kritisiert werde, daß mein Alt-Text die 200-Zeichen-Marke oder mein Post die 500-Zeichen-Marke überschreitet, oder daß ich für das Letztere blockiert werde. Das Risiko, daß das passiert, reduziere ich mit einer Zusammenfassung, die eine Langer-Post-Inhaltswarnung mit der ungefähren Länge des Post enthält, und den Hashtags #Long, #LongPost, #CWLong, #CWLongPost, #LangerPost und #CWLangerPost, die dann gefiltert werden können.
Aber ich hoffe, daß keiner sagen kann, ich hätte mich nicht genug angestrengt.
#FediMeta #FediverseMeta #CWFediMeta #CWFediverseMeta #Zeichenlimit #Zeichenlimits #ZeichenlimitMeta #CWZeichenlimitMeta #500Zeichen #CW #CWs #CWMeta #ContentWarning #ContentWarnings #ContentWarningMeta #Hashtag #Hashtags #HashtagMeta #CWHashtagMeta #AltText #AltTextMeta #CWAltTextMeta #Bildbeschreibung #Bildbeschreibungen #BildbeschreibungenMeta #CWBildbeschreibungenMeta -
CW: Good image descriptions require a much bigger effort than you may think; CW: long (over 5,300 characters), Fediverse meta, Fediverse-beyond-Mastodon meta, character limit meta, content warning meta, hashtag meta, alt-text meta, image description meta, AI mentioned (AI-)
Image descriptions are important in the Fediverse, at least if your posts have a chance to reach Mastodon. But is it only about having image descriptions in general? Is it only about having image descriptions at all? Or is it about image description quality as well?
Blind or visually-impaired users say that anything is better than nothing. But seriously, the image file name as the alt-text is useless. So is a copy of the post text as the alt-text; at least one mobile app for Mastodon seems to do that automatically. So is some gibberish written into the alt-text, just so that there's some alt-text.
So you write a short image description for your alt-text. That should be much better than nothing.
But then you're criticised and sanctioned because your image description lacks detail.
Since you can't or don't want to write a longer description, you leave that to an AI.
But then you're criticised and sanctioned because your image description is obvious AI slop. The AI is inaccurate, it hallucinates, it misidentifies things and it still leaves out details.
Okay, so you sit down and put quite some time and effort into a hand-written image description that's both accurate and detailed. At least you think so.
And still, someone may come and criticise and/or sanction you for having left out certain details.
If you don't fix your image description to their satisfaction, you're insulted as ableist and blocked very publicly so that as many other users as possible block you, too.
Now, minimum quality standards for image descriptions are evolving over time. What matters now didn't necessarily matter two years ago. Things that don't matter now may matter in two years or in five years. Even today, alt-text activists criticise image posts that are several years old for image descriptions that they consider less than optimal. This means the image descriptions that you write today must be good enough for as long as your image posts stay available. If they aren't, have fun going through all your old image posts, editing them and upgrading the image descriptions to the latest minimum requirements.
There's only way to be safe from Mastodon's alt-text police in the long run: First of all, you must educate yourself about all the rules and guidelines of alt-texts and image descriptions, and there are dozens of websites about these. You can't know beforehand which ones of these rules will be declared mandatory by someone from the alt-text police in the future, so you'd better follow them to a tee already now. Of course, when two rules contradict each other, you must know which one to follow.
Also, you must know that the requirements and quality standards for good alt-texts and image descriptions on Mastodon are different from the entire rest of the Web. What's good enough for the Web isn't necessarily good enough for Mastodon.
Lastly, you must know your audience. And normally, your audience can be anyone anywhere in the Fediverse or even on the Web. There are only very few places in the Fediverse where you can control who will be able to read your stuff, and Mastodon isn't one of them. You must know your audience, and you must at least be able to estimate what they know about the contents of your image, what they don't know and what they need to know. If your audience doesn't necessarily know what something is, explain it, but please do so in the post text and not in the alt-text! If your audience doesn't necessarily know what something looks like, but it may want to know, describe what it looks like.
As for my own images, my strategy is to write two image descriptions for each image. One is the short image description; it goes into the alt-text. I'm going to limit that to a maximum of 512 characters because Misskey and its forks delete alt-texts that are over 512 characters long. The other one is the long image description; it goes into the post text. The long image description is fully detailed, it contains all explanations necessary to understand the image and its descriptions, and it contains transcripts of every last bit of text anywhere within the borders of the image, readable in the image or not.
Posting memes is a bit easier. There is only one image description that's hopefully short enough to go into the alt-text. But I still need to explain a whole lot of things, and as I can't always rely upon links to websites like KnowYourMeme for explanations, I often have to write a whole lot of explanations into the post.
Ideally, the worst that could happen to me is being criticised for my alt-text exceeding 200 characters or my post exceeding 500 characters or being blocked for the latter. I reduce the chance for that to happen with a summary that includes a long post content warning with the rough length of the post and the hashtags #Long, #LongPost, #CWLong and #CWLongPost that can be filtered. I almost always add hashtags for folks to filter.
But I hope that nobody can say I haven't tried hard enough.
#FediMeta #FediverseMeta #CWFediMeta #CWFediverseMeta #CharacterLimit #CharacterLimits #CharacterLimitMeta #CWCharacterLimitMeta #500Characters #CW #CWs #CWMeta #ContentWarning #ContentWarnings #ContentWarningMeta #Hashtag #Hashtags #HashtagMeta #CWHashtagMeta #AltText #AltTextMeta #CWAltTextMeta #ImageDescription #ImageDescriptions #ImageDescriptionMeta #CWImageDescriptionMeta -
CW: Good image descriptions require a much bigger effort than you may think; CW: long (over 5,300 characters), Fediverse meta, Fediverse-beyond-Mastodon meta, character limit meta, content warning meta, hashtag meta, alt-text meta, image description meta, AI mentioned (AI-)
Image descriptions are important in the Fediverse, at least if your posts have a chance to reach Mastodon. But is it only about having image descriptions in general? Is it only about having image descriptions at all? Or is it about image description quality as well?
Blind or visually-impaired users say that anything is better than nothing. But seriously, the image file name as the alt-text is useless. So is a copy of the post text as the alt-text; at least one mobile app for Mastodon seems to do that automatically. So is some gibberish written into the alt-text, just so that there's some alt-text.
So you write a short image description for your alt-text. That should be much better than nothing.
But then you're criticised and sanctioned because your image description lacks detail.
Since you can't or don't want to write a longer description, you leave that to an AI.
But then you're criticised and sanctioned because your image description is obvious AI slop. The AI is inaccurate, it hallucinates, it misidentifies things and it still leaves out details.
Okay, so you sit down and put quite some time and effort into a hand-written image description that's both accurate and detailed. At least you think so.
And still, someone may come and criticise and/or sanction you for having left out certain details.
If you don't fix your image description to their satisfaction, you're insulted as ableist and blocked very publicly so that as many other users as possible block you, too.
Now, minimum quality standards for image descriptions are evolving over time. What matters now didn't necessarily matter two years ago. Things that don't matter now may matter in two years or in five years. Even today, alt-text activists criticise image posts that are several years old for image descriptions that they consider less than optimal. This means the image descriptions that you write today must be good enough for as long as your image posts stay available. If they aren't, have fun going through all your old image posts, editing them and upgrading the image descriptions to the latest minimum requirements.
There's only way to be safe from Mastodon's alt-text police in the long run: First of all, you must educate yourself about all the rules and guidelines of alt-texts and image descriptions, and there are dozens of websites about these. You can't know beforehand which ones of these rules will be declared mandatory by someone from the alt-text police in the future, so you'd better follow them to a tee already now. Of course, when two rules contradict each other, you must know which one to follow.
Also, you must know that the requirements and quality standards for good alt-texts and image descriptions on Mastodon are different from the entire rest of the Web. What's good enough for the Web isn't necessarily good enough for Mastodon.
Lastly, you must know your audience. And normally, your audience can be anyone anywhere in the Fediverse or even on the Web. There are only very few places in the Fediverse where you can control who will be able to read your stuff, and Mastodon isn't one of them. You must know your audience, and you must at least be able to estimate what they know about the contents of your image, what they don't know and what they need to know. If your audience doesn't necessarily know what something is, explain it, but please do so in the post text and not in the alt-text! If your audience doesn't necessarily know what something looks like, but it may want to know, describe what it looks like.
As for my own images, my strategy is to write two image descriptions for each image. One is the short image description; it goes into the alt-text. I'm going to limit that to a maximum of 512 characters because Misskey and its forks delete alt-texts that are over 512 characters long. The other one is the long image description; it goes into the post text. The long image description is fully detailed, it contains all explanations necessary to understand the image and its descriptions, and it contains transcripts of every last bit of text anywhere within the borders of the image, readable in the image or not.
Posting memes is a bit easier. There is only one image description that's hopefully short enough to go into the alt-text. But I still need to explain a whole lot of things, and as I can't always rely upon links to websites like KnowYourMeme for explanations, I often have to write a whole lot of explanations into the post.
Ideally, the worst that could happen to me is being criticised for my alt-text exceeding 200 characters or my post exceeding 500 characters or being blocked for the latter. I reduce the chance for that to happen with a summary that includes a long post content warning with the rough length of the post and the hashtags #Long, #LongPost, #CWLong and #CWLongPost that can be filtered. I almost always add hashtags for folks to filter.
But I hope that nobody can say I haven't tried hard enough.
#FediMeta #FediverseMeta #CWFediMeta #CWFediverseMeta #CharacterLimit #CharacterLimits #CharacterLimitMeta #CWCharacterLimitMeta #500Characters #CW #CWs #CWMeta #ContentWarning #ContentWarnings #ContentWarningMeta #Hashtag #Hashtags #HashtagMeta #CWHashtagMeta #AltText #AltTextMeta #CWAltTextMeta #ImageDescription #ImageDescriptions #ImageDescriptionMeta #CWImageDescriptionMeta -
@Sean C. @Stefan Bohacek @Blorbo Admin Chicken @Justin Ferrell I've once encountered someone who seemed to suffer from such extreme PTSD that they demanded everyone CW literally absolutely everything. And, of course, the Mastodon way by forciing all these CWs upon absolutely everyone all the same.
Now, I'm not even on Mastodon myself. I'm on Hubzilla which is doing CWs way differently from Mastodon, which has been doing that for longer than Mastodon has even existed, much less has had CWs.
We don't do CWs poster-side. We don't write CWs into the summary field. In fact, the summary field, which Mastodon has been using as a CW field since 2017, is still a summary field here. A summary field makes a whole lot of sense here, for while most Mastodon servers have a hard-coded character limit of 500, Hubzilla doesn't really have any character limit at all.
Also, we can't do Mastodon-style CWs in replies which are called "comments" here. Like on Facebook, like on Tumblr, like on every last blog out there, but very much unlike on Mastodon, our post editor and our comment editors are wholly separate things. The comment editor can't do summaries. Why not? Because, have you ever seen a blog comment with a summary?
No, we have our CWs automatically generated and reader-side. We have a kind of filter called "NSFW" that can automatically hide content behind a CW. It's basically Mastodon's "Hide with a warning", but as its own keyword filter list and seven years before Mastodon introduced "Hide with a warning". (Twelve years actually because Hubzilla inherited that feature from Friendica.)
When we post sensitive or disturbing content, we make sure that those who may not want to see that content have their filters triggered. We do so by making sure that appropriate keywords are in the post text (easy-peasy when you can post over 33,000 times more characters than on Mastodon) or by adding hashtags. The latter is what I do, hence the many hashtags down there.
It's also the only way to have a comment hidden. Again, Hubzilla doesn't have a summary field (= Mastodon CW field) for replies, so it has to rely on people making filters for uncomfortable content.
This could be a thing on Mastodon as well. After all, in October, 2022, Mastodon 4.0 introduced "Hide with a warning" to its filters which does the exact same thing as NSFW on Friendica and Hubzilla: hide messages depending on keywords. However, Mastodon's entire culture was defined in mid-2022 by those who had fled from Twitter in early 2022, so it's based on Mastodon 3.x without "Hide with a warning".
Besides, the vast majority of Mastodon users don't even know that Mastodon has "Hide with a warning", much less what it does. Precious few even seem to know that Mastodon has filters in the first place. And next to nobody knows what the non-Mastodon Fediverse has, nor do they care, also because most Mastodon users don't even know that the Fediverse goes beyond Mastodon, Pixelfed and PeerTube.
In addition, while Hubzilla is all about empowering its users to self-moderate their stream, the "Mastodon experience" is generally perceived as being coddled and pampered all over. By mods who remove unwanted content and by all the other users who hide uncomfortable content. Hide it from everyone all the same, regardless of whether or not someone needs that, just because one person needs it.
So back to the beginning: This person took Mastodon's culture to the absolute extreme. And they demanded that I a) adopted Mastodon's way even though it'd b) clash with Hubzilla's culture which is my native culture and c) exaggerate it to the maximum.
Of course, my suggestion to use "Hide with a warning" filters didn't come to fruition. For one, that would have required an infinite number of individual filters on Mastodon. Besides, that person felt entitled to have protection from literally absolutely any and all kinds of content served to them on a silver platter.
I think I ended up Superblocking them.
#Long #LongPost #CWLong #CWLongPost #FediMeta #FediverseMeta #CWFediMeta #CWFediverseMeta #Fediverse #Mastodon #Hubzilla #CharacterLimit #CharacterLimits #CharacterLimitMeta #CWCharacterLimitMeta #CW #CWs #CWMeta #ContentWarning #ContentWarnings #ContentWarningMeta #MastodonCulture -
@Stefan Bohacek @Blorbo Admin Chicken Yes, I wish more servers had this rule and enforced it.
Officially appointed moderators only go by the server's written rules, and they only enforce them against local users.
The HOA, on the other hand, have some rules in their heads. Everyone has different rules. And they enforce them against everyone, even regardless of where everyone actually is. Like, they attack Friendica users for allegedly misusing the CW field because they neither know that these users are not on Mastodon, much less where they actually are, nor that Mastodon's CW field has been an abstract field on Friendica for seven years longer than it has been a CW field on Mastodon.
This is part of what makes the Fediverse a minefield once your messages start reaching Mastodon.
I can't say that I'll stop being so overly careful with everything and putting such a big effort particulary into image descriptions, summaries/content warnings and hashtags for filter-triggering purposes if more or even most Mastodon servers adopt and enforce this rule. The irony is that this rule actually protects my long hashtag lines.
In fact, rules like these also ought to include that nobody must be policed for writing "too long" posts because there are places in the Fediverse that neither have character limits to worry about nor a character-limiting culture.
#Long #LongPost #CWLong #CWLongPost #FediMeta #FediverseMeta #CWFediMeta #CWFediverseMeta #CW #CWs #CWMeta #ContentWarning #ContentWarnings #ContentWarningMeta #AltText #AltTextMeta #CWAltTextMeta #ImageDescription #ImageDescriptions #ImageDescriptionMeta #CWImageDescriptionMeta #Hashtag #Hashtags #HashtagMeta #CWHashtagMeta #CharacterLimit #CharacterLimits #CharacterLimitMeta #CWCharacterLimitMeta -
@Stefan Bohacek @Blorbo Admin Chicken Yes, I wish more servers had this rule and enforced it.
Officially appointed moderators only go by the server's written rules, and they only enforce them against local users.
The HOA, on the other hand, have some rules in their heads. Everyone has different rules. And they enforce them against everyone, even regardless of where everyone actually is. Like, they attack Friendica users for allegedly misusing the CW field because they neither know that these users are not on Mastodon, much less where they actually are, nor that Mastodon's CW field has been an abstract field on Friendica for seven years longer than it has been a CW field on Mastodon.
This is part of what makes the Fediverse a minefield once your messages start reaching Mastodon.
I can't say that I'll stop being so overly careful with everything and putting such a big effort particulary into image descriptions, summaries/content warnings and hashtags for filter-triggering purposes if more or even most Mastodon servers adopt and enforce this rule. The irony is that this rule actually protects my long hashtag lines.
In fact, rules like these also ought to include that nobody must be policed for writing "too long" posts because there are places in the Fediverse that neither have character limits to worry about nor a character-limiting culture.
#Long #LongPost #CWLong #CWLongPost #FediMeta #FediverseMeta #CWFediMeta #CWFediverseMeta #CW #CWs #CWMeta #ContentWarning #ContentWarnings #ContentWarningMeta #AltText #AltTextMeta #CWAltTextMeta #ImageDescription #ImageDescriptions #ImageDescriptionMeta #CWImageDescriptionMeta #Hashtag #Hashtags #HashtagMeta #CWHashtagMeta #CharacterLimit #CharacterLimits #CharacterLimitMeta #CWCharacterLimitMeta -
CW: Long posts vs insufficiently described images: I can't win either way; CW: long (over 3,500 characters), Fediverse meta, Fediverse-beyond-Mastodon meta, alt-text meta, image description meta, content warning meta, character limit meta
On the one hand, I have to go out of my way and write two image descriptions for each one of my original images. One is short and goes into the alt-text, and I'm going to limit all my future alt-text to a maximum of 512 characters (otherwise users on Misskey, Sharkey etc. will believe I haven't written any alt-text because they won't receive any due to a bug).
The other one is enormous degrees of magnitudes longer than anything most Fediverse users have ever read in the Fediverse. It also contains all explanations necessary to understand the image and its description, and if there's text anywhere within the borders of the image, readable or not, it contains verbatim transcripts of said text.
The nature of my original images requires such long descriptions. Besides, the only way to really be safe from the alt-text police of the Mastodon HOA is to overcomply with whatever minimum standards for good image descriptions anyone of them may have.
On the other hand, the self-same Mastodon HOA is likely to sanction me for the self-same posts. The reason: The posts are way too long. They exceed the limit of 500 characters that's so deeply engrained into Mastodon's culture that many Mastodonians are eager to defend it. Even if I hide them behind a summary with a content warning about the post being long. If I were to appease these Mastodonians, I'd have to underdescribe my images, and I wouldn't be able to explain them at all.
Speaking of underdescribing, I think at least some members of the alt-text police actually don't let image descriptions in the post count. What counts is only the image description in the alt-text. It must be accurate, it must be sufficiently detailed, and it must contain all the text transcripts. In fact, I wouldn't wonder if they demanded sufficient explanations in the alt-text, not knowing that explanations in alt-text are actually a big no-no.
Even if all requirements of a good alt-text by alt-text police standards are met or even exceeded by the image description in the post, chances are the alt-text police will still sanction me if the alt-text doesn't meet these criteria.
When it comes to my original images, even squeezing all that into the 1,500-character limit for alt-texts imposed by Mastodon is pretty much impossible. Squeezing it into the 512-character limit for alt-text imposed by Misskey and its forks is even more impossible.
The only winning move is to not play at all. Curiously, some people are even upset about me rarely posting any images. Although they don't follow me. Although the channel that I use for original images (@Jupiter Rowland's (streams) outlet) has next to no reach, so even if I were to post images again, practically nobody would notice. Although it doesn't even seem that there's much interest in that kind of images in the first place.
But apparently, according to some, posting images with only rudimentary alt-text whipped up in a minute, no long description and no explanations is always so much better than not posting images because it takes so much time and effort to describe them.
#Long #LongPost #CWLong #CWLongPost #FediMeta #FediverseMeta #CWFediMeta #CWFediverseMeta #AltText #AltTextMeta #CWAltTextMeta #ImageDescription #ImageDescriptions #ImageDescriptionMeta #CWImageDescriptionMeta #AltTextPolice #MastodonHOA #CW #CWs #CWMeta #ContentWarning #ContentWarnings #ContentWarningMeta #CWContentWarningMeta #CharacterLimit #CharacterLimits #CharacterLimitMeta #CWCharacterLimitMeta #500Characters #MastodonCulture -
CW: Long posts vs insufficiently described images: I can't win either way; CW: long (over 3,500 characters), Fediverse meta, Fediverse-beyond-Mastodon meta, alt-text meta, image description meta, content warning meta, character limit meta
On the one hand, I have to go out of my way and write two image descriptions for each one of my original images. One is short and goes into the alt-text, and I'm going to limit all my future alt-text to a maximum of 512 characters (otherwise users on Misskey, Sharkey etc. will believe I haven't written any alt-text because they won't receive any due to a bug).
The other one is enormous degrees of magnitudes longer than anything most Fediverse users have ever read in the Fediverse. It also contains all explanations necessary to understand the image and its description, and if there's text anywhere within the borders of the image, readable or not, it contains verbatim transcripts of said text.
The nature of my original images requires such long descriptions. Besides, the only way to really be safe from the alt-text police of the Mastodon HOA is to overcomply with whatever minimum standards for good image descriptions anyone of them may have.
On the other hand, the self-same Mastodon HOA is likely to sanction me for the self-same posts. The reason: The posts are way too long. They exceed the limit of 500 characters that's so deeply engrained into Mastodon's culture that many Mastodonians are eager to defend it. Even if I hide them behind a summary with a content warning about the post being long. If I were to appease these Mastodonians, I'd have to underdescribe my images, and I wouldn't be able to explain them at all.
Speaking of underdescribing, I think at least some members of the alt-text police actually don't let image descriptions in the post count. What counts is only the image description in the alt-text. It must be accurate, it must be sufficiently detailed, and it must contain all the text transcripts. In fact, I wouldn't wonder if they demanded sufficient explanations in the alt-text, not knowing that explanations in alt-text are actually a big no-no.
Even if all requirements of a good alt-text by alt-text police standards are met or even exceeded by the image description in the post, chances are the alt-text police will still sanction me if the alt-text doesn't meet these criteria.
When it comes to my original images, even squeezing all that into the 1,500-character limit for alt-texts imposed by Mastodon is pretty much impossible. Squeezing it into the 512-character limit for alt-text imposed by Misskey and its forks is even more impossible.
The only winning move is to not play at all. Curiously, some people are even upset about me rarely posting any images. Although they don't follow me. Although the channel that I use for original images (@Jupiter Rowland's (streams) outlet) has next to no reach, so even if I were to post images again, practically nobody would notice. Although it doesn't even seem that there's much interest in that kind of images in the first place.
But apparently, according to some, posting images with only rudimentary alt-text whipped up in a minute, no long description and no explanations is always so much better than not posting images because it takes so much time and effort to describe them.
#Long #LongPost #CWLong #CWLongPost #FediMeta #FediverseMeta #CWFediMeta #CWFediverseMeta #AltText #AltTextMeta #CWAltTextMeta #ImageDescription #ImageDescriptions #ImageDescriptionMeta #CWImageDescriptionMeta #AltTextPolice #MastodonHOA #CW #CWs #CWMeta #ContentWarning #ContentWarnings #ContentWarningMeta #CWContentWarningMeta #CharacterLimit #CharacterLimits #CharacterLimitMeta #CWCharacterLimitMeta #500Characters #MastodonCulture -
@Justin Crozer @Stefan Bohacek @Lentävä Kalakukko @Roni Rolle Laukkarinen Whenever I see Mastodon users talk about "culture" in a Fediverse context, I have to wonder: What exactly do they refer to when they talk about "culture"?
Is it Fediverse culture? As in, overarching, software-independent Fediverse culture?
As in, taking into consideration that Fediverse server applications that aren't Mastodon, e.g. Misskey or Sharkey or Friendica or Hubzilla, have different cultures than Mastodon?
Recognising a post or a comment from one of these applications, acknowledging that it comes from a place with a different history, a different set of features and thus a different culture than Mastodon and refraining from enforcing Mastodon's unwritten rules against it?
Or does "culture" only refer to Mastodon's culture? Does it reject or completely disregard all cultures in the Fediverse that aren't Mastodon's and demand the whole Fediverse adopt Mastodon's culture and only Mastodon's culture?
Do these "bad eggs" include users who post more than 500 characters at once (which, by the way, is perfectly normal everywhere outside of Mastodon)?
Do these "bad eggs" include users who reply to people who haven't mentioned them first, and whom they aren't mutually following either (which, by the way, is perfectly normal in large parts of the non-Mastodon Fediverse, too)?
Do these "bad eggs" include users who quote-post Mastodon toots that must not be quote-posted (because they've had quote-posts for much longer than Mastodon, but without a no-quote flag so they can't see Mastodon's no-quote flag)?
Do these "bad eggs" incllude users who "misuse" Mastodon's CW field for summaries (because they have literally had the exact same text field as a summary field for seven years longer than Mastodon has had it as a CW field, and because having a summary field makes a whole lot of sense if your character limit is not 500, but over 16.7 million)?
Do these "bad eggs" include users who use more than four hashtags in one post (because, unlike Mastodon, the places where they are have filtering as well as automatically having messages hidden behind CW buttons deeply engrained into their cultures, but this requires the appropriate keywords to be present)?
If so, then this explains why only Mastodon users can enjoy significant reach on Mastodon: Everyone else is mass-blocked for misbehaving by Mastodon's standards.
#Long #LongPost #CWLong #CWLongPost #FediMeta #FediverseMeta #CWFediMeta #CWFediverseMeta #QuotePost #QuotePosts #QuoteTweet #QuoteTweets #QuoteToot #QuoteToots #QuoteBoost #QuoteBoosts #QuotedShares #QuotePostDebate #QuoteTootDebate #CW #CWs #CWMeta #ContentWarning #ContentWarnings #ContentWarningMeta #CharacterLimit #CharacterLimits #CharacterLimitMeta #CWCharacterLimitMeta #Fediverse #Mastodon #NotOnlyMastodon #FediverseIsNotMastodon #MastodonIsNotTheFediverse #MastodonCulture #MastodonCentricity #MastodonNormativity -
@Justin Crozer @Stefan Bohacek @Lentävä Kalakukko @Roni Rolle Laukkarinen Whenever I see Mastodon users talk about "culture" in a Fediverse context, I have to wonder: What exactly do they refer to when they talk about "culture"?
Is it Fediverse culture? As in, overarching, software-independent Fediverse culture?
As in, taking into consideration that Fediverse server applications that aren't Mastodon, e.g. Misskey or Sharkey or Friendica or Hubzilla, have different cultures than Mastodon?
Recognising a post or a comment from one of these applications, acknowledging that it comes from a place with a different history, a different set of features and thus a different culture than Mastodon and refraining from enforcing Mastodon's unwritten rules against it?
Or does "culture" only refer to Mastodon's culture? Does it reject or completely disregard all cultures in the Fediverse that aren't Mastodon's and demand the whole Fediverse adopt Mastodon's culture and only Mastodon's culture?
Do these "bad eggs" include users who post more than 500 characters at once (which, by the way, is perfectly normal everywhere outside of Mastodon)?
Do these "bad eggs" include users who reply to people who haven't mentioned them first, and whom they aren't mutually following either (which, by the way, is perfectly normal in large parts of the non-Mastodon Fediverse, too)?
Do these "bad eggs" include users who quote-post Mastodon toots that must not be quote-posted (because they've had quote-posts for much longer than Mastodon, but without a no-quote flag so they can't see Mastodon's no-quote flag)?
Do these "bad eggs" incllude users who "misuse" Mastodon's CW field for summaries (because they have literally had the exact same text field as a summary field for seven years longer than Mastodon has had it as a CW field, and because having a summary field makes a whole lot of sense if your character limit is not 500, but over 16.7 million)?
Do these "bad eggs" include users who use more than four hashtags in one post (because, unlike Mastodon, the places where they are have filtering as well as automatically having messages hidden behind CW buttons deeply engrained into their cultures, but this requires the appropriate keywords to be present)?
If so, then this explains why only Mastodon users can enjoy significant reach on Mastodon: Everyone else is mass-blocked for misbehaving by Mastodon's standards.
#Long #LongPost #CWLong #CWLongPost #FediMeta #FediverseMeta #CWFediMeta #CWFediverseMeta #QuotePost #QuotePosts #QuoteTweet #QuoteTweets #QuoteToot #QuoteToots #QuoteBoost #QuoteBoosts #QuotedShares #QuotePostDebate #QuoteTootDebate #CW #CWs #CWMeta #ContentWarning #ContentWarnings #ContentWarningMeta #CharacterLimit #CharacterLimits #CharacterLimitMeta #CWCharacterLimitMeta #Fediverse #Mastodon #NotOnlyMastodon #FediverseIsNotMastodon #MastodonIsNotTheFediverse #MastodonCulture #MastodonCentricity #MastodonNormativity -
Your own posts aren't any better anyway; CW: long (over 1,300 characters), Fediverse meta, Fediverse-beyond-Mastodon meta, alt-text meta, image description meta, character limit meta, hashtag meta View article View summary
@David Mitchell :CApride: On the other hand, when I look at your personal timeline, it's obvious that you've never really arrived on Mastodon. You break all kinds of rules. You break alt-text and image-describing rules, and you break Mastodon's cultural rules.
You write alt-texts in multiple paragraphs. You almost never use CWs, not for posts over 500 characters, not for US or Canadian politics, not for wars, never. You rarely use hashtags, and when you do, you sometimes put them in-line instead of all into the bottom line. In-line hashtags are inconvenient for screen reader users.
You boost image posts without checking whether the images have alt-texts, much less whether the alt-texts are accurate, sufficiently detailed and in line with the existing alt-text and image description rules. You boost posts about potentially disturbing topics that have no CWs.
So don't come lecturing me if your own doings are likely to get you silently muted and blocked by other Mastodon users left and right.
#Long #LongPost #CWLong #CWLongPost #FediMeta #FediverseMeta #CWFediMeta #CWFediverseMeta #AltText #AltTextMeta #CWAltTextMeta #CW #CWs #CWMeta #ContentWarning #ContentWarnings #ContentWarningMeta #CharacterLimit #CharacterLimits #CharacterLimitMeta #CWCharacterLimitMeta #Hashtag #Hashtags #HashtagMeta #CWHashtagMeta #MastodonCulture -
Your own posts aren't any better anyway; CW: long (over 1,300 characters), Fediverse meta, Fediverse-beyond-Mastodon meta, alt-text meta, image description meta, character limit meta, hashtag meta View article View summary
@David Mitchell :CApride: On the other hand, when I look at your personal timeline, it's obvious that you've never really arrived on Mastodon. You break all kinds of rules. You break alt-text and image-describing rules, and you break Mastodon's cultural rules.
You write alt-texts in multiple paragraphs. You almost never use CWs, not for posts over 500 characters, not for US or Canadian politics, not for wars, never. You rarely use hashtags, and when you do, you sometimes put them in-line instead of all into the bottom line. In-line hashtags are inconvenient for screen reader users.
You boost image posts without checking whether the images have alt-texts, much less whether the alt-texts are accurate, sufficiently detailed and in line with the existing alt-text and image description rules. You boost posts about potentially disturbing topics that have no CWs.
So don't come lecturing me if your own doings are likely to get you silently muted and blocked by other Mastodon users left and right.
#Long #LongPost #CWLong #CWLongPost #FediMeta #FediverseMeta #CWFediMeta #CWFediverseMeta #AltText #AltTextMeta #CWAltTextMeta #CW #CWs #CWMeta #ContentWarning #ContentWarnings #ContentWarningMeta #CharacterLimit #CharacterLimits #CharacterLimitMeta #CWCharacterLimitMeta #Hashtag #Hashtags #HashtagMeta #CWHashtagMeta #MastodonCulture -
I've described all my images since I've learned about alt-texts, and I put more effort and knowledge into them than anyone on Mastodon; CW: long (almost 8,700 characters), Fediverse meta, Fediverse-beyond-Mastodon meta, alt-text meta, image description meta, character limit meta Artikel ansehen Zusammenfassung ansehen
@David Mitchell :CApride: Now listen here.
Ever since I've learned about alt-texts and image descriptions, I've described all my images. And unlike most Mastodon users, I've improved my image-describing further and further.
Whenever I learned something new about image descriptions, be it a rule, a guideline, a good practice or a Mastodon preference, I used this new knowledge in new image descriptions and declared all my previous image descriptions obsolete. And I've learned a lot over the years.
I've learned from Mastodon that if explanations are necessary to understand an image, they must be delivered immediately with the image post. Ever since, I've explained everything in my images that needs explaining. And since all my image posts are about extremely obscure niche topics, they need a whole lot of explanations.
I've learned from a physically disabled Mastodon user that not everyone can access alt-texts. She, for example, can't. Thus, explanations in the alt-text are lost to her. I've learned from her that explanations go into the post text. I've put all my explanations into the post text ever since.
I've learned from Mastodon that Mastodon tends to love long, detailed image descriptions. Considering how obscure the contents of my original images are and how nobody knows what anything in them looks like if they don't see it, I came to the conclusion that someone somewhere out there might need full, detailed descriptions. I've given my original images full, detailed descriptions ever since.
I've learned from various sources that alt-text must only describe what's important within the context of a post. But judging from my observations of Mastodon, its culture and its love for long alt-texts override this rule. If someone wants to know about all the small details in your images, the context doesn't matter. Thus, how detailed my image descriptions are depends on whether or not I have to expect someone being curious about the details.
I've learned by experimentation that Mastodon truncates long external alt-texts from outside at the 1,500-character mark. Also, Hubzilla (where I am) can only display so many characters of alt-text, and alt-text cannot be scrolled. Since the audience of my alt-texts is pretty much exclusively on Mastodon, I've put the full, long, detailed image descriptions into the post text.
I've learned from a blog post that alt-texts must never contain line breaks. Line breaks in alt-texts have a nasty side-effect for screen reader users: After each line break, screen readers assume that they're reading a new alt-text for a new image. And they start whatever they consider an individual image alt-text with something like, "Graphic." Thus, I write all my alt-texts as one single paragraph.
I've learned from another blog post, as well as personal experience with various Fediverse server applications, that alt-texts must never contain the double quotes commonly found on keyboards. Different frontends may misbehave in different ways, some fail very ungracefully. Thus, I no longer use these quotes in my alt-texts.
I've learned from Mastodon that even if there is an image description in the post text, there must always be an accurate and sufficiently detailed image description in the alt-text regardless. Otherwise you risk being sanctioned. I have described all my original images twice ever since: with a long and fully detailed description in the post text and a shorter description in the alt-text.
I've learned from blog posts and websites about alt-texts that text in images must be transcribed verbatim. However, nowhere that I've seen this rule written down, I've seen it mention text that's unreadable in the image while the author knows what's written there. My conclusion is that there is no exception for these texts. I tend to have many such texts. Thus, I transcribe all bits and pieces of text within the borders of my images if I have a way to read them. And I usually have.
I've learned from other blog posts about alt-texts that colours must not only be mentioned in image descriptions, but they must also be described. After all, blind people cannot be expected to know what e.g. Burgundy red is. Also, dimensions must be given not simply in absolute measures, but relatively to what else is in the image or to something that everyone is familiar with, namely the human body. Unfortunately, I've learned that so recently that I only have one original image post in which I make use of these techniques; hence, all my older original image posts count as obsolete.
I've learned from yet elsewhere that races must not be mentioned, and genders must not be assumed. I abide by both when describing meme images. My original images, on the other hand, never contain actual human beings. Whenever I show an avatar, it's always one of my avatars whose gender I have personally defined, and these avatars can't really emulate real-life human phenotypes.
Most of the above has never been taken into consideration by anyone on Mastodon. I'm literally the only one in the Fediverse who takes describing images to such levels.
But I go beyond alt-texts and image descriptions.
I've learned from Mastodon that if there's something, anything in a post of yours that might disturb anyone in some way, the post requires a Mastodon-style content warning that mentions in which way the post is disturbing. Here on Hubzilla, that's a summary. It's the same thing, and Hubzilla had summaries before Mastodon had CWs.
From observing both Mastodon and the Web outside the Fediverse, I've compiled a list of potentially triggering topics. Even excluding national/state/provincial/regional politics, I've gathered 111 of these so far. I do my best to include each one whenever necessary. On top of that, I add CWs for many things I post about because I guess I go onto people's nerves when I post about them (the Fediverse, alt-text, image descriptions, hashtags, character limits, quote-posts, actual quote-posting etc.).
However, Hubzilla is not a Twitter wannabe. It's more like Facebook or blogging software. It only offers a summary (Mastodon: CW) field for posts and DMs, but not for comments (it has two different editors for when you reply and when you don't). I could try to add a summary (Mastodon: CW) using a pair of BBcode tags, and I've done so here, but I know from personal experience that the summary tags do not translate to a Mastodon CW in comments. I'd add an individual CW to each one of my comments, but Mastodon users will neither get an actual CW nor understand that I've tried.
So I double almost all my CW'd topics up with an appropriate set of hashtags. This is in line with the culture where I am: Here on Hubzilla and in its whole software family, we don't force poster-side CWs upon each other. Instead, we have them automatically generated for ourselves, reader-side, tailored to our individual needs. But this requires keywords to trigger the automated hiding of content behind CWs.
Also, I know just what may disturb people. The best example is eye contact. You think that eye contact can only be triggering in full-face portraits of a person looking directly at the viewer? Wrong! It's triggering if there's at least one eye in the image. I've been told that some people in the autistic spectrum can detect an eye in an image if it's only a tiny fraction of a pixel. I have to expect this to extend to other potentially triggering things as well.
Thus, if it's potentially triggering and somewhere within the borders of one of my images, even if it's hardly discernible or completely invisible to the neurotypical, I still consider the whole image potentially triggering, and I treat the image and the whole post as such.
In fact, I've stopped posting potentially triggering images here on Hubzilla altogether. That's because Hubzilla has no way of making Mastodon blank an image out. And not long ago, Mastodon's CWs only hid the post text, but not the images belonging to a post. I can't rule out that certain Mastodon apps still behave this way. So I can't even use CWs to hide a triggering image. This is why I only ever post images on (streams) now: (streams) makes Mastodon blank images out when a post contains one or two certain hashtags.
Again, nobody on Mastodon goes even only nearly that far.
Please tell me in which ways exactly this is still insufficient.
#Long #LongPost #CWLong #CWLongPost #FediMeta #FediverseMeta #CWFediMeta #CWFediverseMeta #AltText #AltTextMeta #CWAltTextMeta #ImageDescription #ImageDescriptions #ImageDescriptionMeta #CWImageDescriptionMeta #CW #CWs #CWMeta #ContentWarning #ContentWarnings #ContentWarningMeta #CharacterLimit #CharacterLimits #CharacterLimitMeta #CWCharacterLimitMeta #Hashtag #Hashtags #HashtagMeta #CWHashtagMeta -
I've described all my images since I've learned about alt-texts, and I put more effort and knowledge into them than anyone on Mastodon; CW: long (almost 8,700 characters), Fediverse meta, Fediverse-beyond-Mastodon meta, alt-text meta, image description meta, character limit meta Artikel ansehen Zusammenfassung ansehen
@David Mitchell :CApride: Now listen here.
Ever since I've learned about alt-texts and image descriptions, I've described all my images. And unlike most Mastodon users, I've improved my image-describing further and further.
Whenever I learned something new about image descriptions, be it a rule, a guideline, a good practice or a Mastodon preference, I used this new knowledge in new image descriptions and declared all my previous image descriptions obsolete. And I've learned a lot over the years.
I've learned from Mastodon that if explanations are necessary to understand an image, they must be delivered immediately with the image post. Ever since, I've explained everything in my images that needs explaining. And since all my image posts are about extremely obscure niche topics, they need a whole lot of explanations.
I've learned from a physically disabled Mastodon user that not everyone can access alt-texts. She, for example, can't. Thus, explanations in the alt-text are lost to her. I've learned from her that explanations go into the post text. I've put all my explanations into the post text ever since.
I've learned from Mastodon that Mastodon tends to love long, detailed image descriptions. Considering how obscure the contents of my original images are and how nobody knows what anything in them looks like if they don't see it, I came to the conclusion that someone somewhere out there might need full, detailed descriptions. I've given my original images full, detailed descriptions ever since.
I've learned from various sources that alt-text must only describe what's important within the context of a post. But judging from my observations of Mastodon, its culture and its love for long alt-texts override this rule. If someone wants to know about all the small details in your images, the context doesn't matter. Thus, how detailed my image descriptions are depends on whether or not I have to expect someone being curious about the details.
I've learned by experimentation that Mastodon truncates long external alt-texts from outside at the 1,500-character mark. Also, Hubzilla (where I am) can only display so many characters of alt-text, and alt-text cannot be scrolled. Since the audience of my alt-texts is pretty much exclusively on Mastodon, I've put the full, long, detailed image descriptions into the post text.
I've learned from a blog post that alt-texts must never contain line breaks. Line breaks in alt-texts have a nasty side-effect for screen reader users: After each line break, screen readers assume that they're reading a new alt-text for a new image. And they start whatever they consider an individual image alt-text with something like, "Graphic." Thus, I write all my alt-texts as one single paragraph.
I've learned from another blog post, as well as personal experience with various Fediverse server applications, that alt-texts must never contain the double quotes commonly found on keyboards. Different frontends may misbehave in different ways, some fail very ungracefully. Thus, I no longer use these quotes in my alt-texts.
I've learned from Mastodon that even if there is an image description in the post text, there must always be an accurate and sufficiently detailed image description in the alt-text regardless. Otherwise you risk being sanctioned. I have described all my original images twice ever since: with a long and fully detailed description in the post text and a shorter description in the alt-text.
I've learned from blog posts and websites about alt-texts that text in images must be transcribed verbatim. However, nowhere that I've seen this rule written down, I've seen it mention text that's unreadable in the image while the author knows what's written there. My conclusion is that there is no exception for these texts. I tend to have many such texts. Thus, I transcribe all bits and pieces of text within the borders of my images if I have a way to read them. And I usually have.
I've learned from other blog posts about alt-texts that colours must not only be mentioned in image descriptions, but they must also be described. After all, blind people cannot be expected to know what e.g. Burgundy red is. Also, dimensions must be given not simply in absolute measures, but relatively to what else is in the image or to something that everyone is familiar with, namely the human body. Unfortunately, I've learned that so recently that I only have one original image post in which I make use of these techniques; hence, all my older original image posts count as obsolete.
I've learned from yet elsewhere that races must not be mentioned, and genders must not be assumed. I abide by both when describing meme images. My original images, on the other hand, never contain actual human beings. Whenever I show an avatar, it's always one of my avatars whose gender I have personally defined, and these avatars can't really emulate real-life human phenotypes.
Most of the above has never been taken into consideration by anyone on Mastodon. I'm literally the only one in the Fediverse who takes describing images to such levels.
But I go beyond alt-texts and image descriptions.
I've learned from Mastodon that if there's something, anything in a post of yours that might disturb anyone in some way, the post requires a Mastodon-style content warning that mentions in which way the post is disturbing. Here on Hubzilla, that's a summary. It's the same thing, and Hubzilla had summaries before Mastodon had CWs.
From observing both Mastodon and the Web outside the Fediverse, I've compiled a list of potentially triggering topics. Even excluding national/state/provincial/regional politics, I've gathered 111 of these so far. I do my best to include each one whenever necessary. On top of that, I add CWs for many things I post about because I guess I go onto people's nerves when I post about them (the Fediverse, alt-text, image descriptions, hashtags, character limits, quote-posts, actual quote-posting etc.).
However, Hubzilla is not a Twitter wannabe. It's more like Facebook or blogging software. It only offers a summary (Mastodon: CW) field for posts and DMs, but not for comments (it has two different editors for when you reply and when you don't). I could try to add a summary (Mastodon: CW) using a pair of BBcode tags, and I've done so here, but I know from personal experience that the summary tags do not translate to a Mastodon CW in comments. I'd add an individual CW to each one of my comments, but Mastodon users will neither get an actual CW nor understand that I've tried.
So I double almost all my CW'd topics up with an appropriate set of hashtags. This is in line with the culture where I am: Here on Hubzilla and in its whole software family, we don't force poster-side CWs upon each other. Instead, we have them automatically generated for ourselves, reader-side, tailored to our individual needs. But this requires keywords to trigger the automated hiding of content behind CWs.
Also, I know just what may disturb people. The best example is eye contact. You think that eye contact can only be triggering in full-face portraits of a person looking directly at the viewer? Wrong! It's triggering if there's at least one eye in the image. I've been told that some people in the autistic spectrum can detect an eye in an image if it's only a tiny fraction of a pixel. I have to expect this to extend to other potentially triggering things as well.
Thus, if it's potentially triggering and somewhere within the borders of one of my images, even if it's hardly discernible or completely invisible to the neurotypical, I still consider the whole image potentially triggering, and I treat the image and the whole post as such.
In fact, I've stopped posting potentially triggering images here on Hubzilla altogether. That's because Hubzilla has no way of making Mastodon blank an image out. And not long ago, Mastodon's CWs only hid the post text, but not the images belonging to a post. I can't rule out that certain Mastodon apps still behave this way. So I can't even use CWs to hide a triggering image. This is why I only ever post images on (streams) now: (streams) makes Mastodon blank images out when a post contains one or two certain hashtags.
Again, nobody on Mastodon goes even only nearly that far.
Please tell me in which ways exactly this is still insufficient.
#Long #LongPost #CWLong #CWLongPost #FediMeta #FediverseMeta #CWFediMeta #CWFediverseMeta #AltText #AltTextMeta #CWAltTextMeta #ImageDescription #ImageDescriptions #ImageDescriptionMeta #CWImageDescriptionMeta #CW #CWs #CWMeta #ContentWarning #ContentWarnings #ContentWarningMeta #CharacterLimit #CharacterLimits #CharacterLimitMeta #CWCharacterLimitMeta #Hashtag #Hashtags #HashtagMeta #CWHashtagMeta -
@afreytes, 👁️🗨️of🇵🇷 @Author-ized L.J. I always use a lot of hashtags. I have to. But many of my hashtags are not to increase discoverability. They're to trigger filtering, including filters that hide my content behind CW buttons. Such filters have been available on Mastodon since October, 2022 and here on Hubzilla (https://hubzilla.org, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubzilla, https://joinfediverse.wiki/Hubzilla) since its inception before Mastodon was even made.
This, by the way, is why some of my hashtags start with "CW": They're only there as content warning triggers/content warning substitutes, also because I have no means to add Mastodon-style content warnings to replies. Otherwise this comment would show the following CW on Mastodon:CW: long (over 4,700 characters), Fediverse meta, Fediverse-beyond-Mastodon meta, hashtag meta, content warning meta, character limit meta
However, unless I explicitly talk about certain hashtags, they all always go into the last line. And I think that even 20 hashtags in the last line of one of my posts or comments make people less uncomfortable than the post or comment exceeding 500 characters or myself talking about the Fediverse, especially talking about the Fediverse not only being Mastodon.
This comment, for example, would get the following hashtags (normally in the last line, but this time I'm talking about them):- Hashtags for content over 500 characters:
- #Long (= this message is over 500 characters long which makes some people uncomfortable)
- #LongPost (= this message is over 500 characters long which makes some people uncomfortable; two hashtags because I can't know who filters what)
- #CWLong (= this message is over 500 characters long which makes some people uncomfortable; hashtag version of "CW: long")
- #CWLongPost (= this message is over 500 characters long which makes some people uncomfortable; hashtag version of "CW: long"; two hashtags because I can't know who filters what)
- Hashtags for when I talk about the Fediverse:
- #FediMeta (= I'm talking about the Fediverse which makes some people uncomfortable)
- #FediverseMeta (= I'm talking about the Fediverse which makes some people uncomfortable; two hashtags because I can't know who filters what)
- #CWFediMeta (= I'm talking about the Fediverse which makes some people uncomfortable; hashtag version of "CW: Fediverse meta")
- #CWFediverseMeta (= I'm talking about the Fediverse which makes some people uncomfortable; hashtag version of "CW: Fediverse meta"; two hashtags because I can't know who filters what)
- Hashtags for when I talk about hashtags:
- #Hashtag (= I'm talking about hashtags; also for discovery)
- #Hashtags (= I'm talking about hashtags; also for discovery; two hashtags because I can't know who follows/searches for the singular and who follows/searches for the plural)
- #HashtagMeta (= I'm talking about hashtags and what I think about them which makes some people uncomfortable)
- #CWHashtagMeta (= I'm talking about hashtags and what I think about them which makes some people uncomfortable; hashtag version of "CW: hashtag meta")
- Hashtags for when I talk about content warnings:
- #CW (= I'm talking about content warnings; also for discovery)
- #CWs (= I'm talking about content warnings; also for discovery; two hashtags because I can't know who follows/searches for/filters the singular and who follows/searches for/filters the plural)
- #ContentWarning (= I'm talking about content warnings; also for discovery; multiple hashtags because I can't know who follows/searches for/filters what)
- #ContentWarnings (= I'm talking about content warnings; also for discovery; multiple hashtags because I can't know who follows/searches for/filters what)
- #CWMeta (= I'm talking about content warnings and what I think about them which makes some people uncomfortable)
- #ContentWarningMeta (= I'm talking about content warnings and what I think about them which makes some people uncomfortable; also for discovery; multiple hashtags because I can't know who filters what)
- Hashtags for when I talk about character limits:
- #CharacterLimit (= I'm talking about character limits; also for discovery)
- #CharacterLimits (= I'm talking about character limits; also for discovery; two hashtags because I can't know who follows/searches for the singular and who follows/searches for the plural)
- #CharacterLimitMeta (= I'm talking about character limits and what I, as someone with over 16.7 million characters, think about them which makes some people uncomfortable)
- #CWCharacterLimitMeta (= I'm talking about character limits and what I, as someone with over 16.7 million characters, think about them which makes some people uncomfortable; hashtag version of "CW: character limit meta")
- Hashtags for content over 500 characters:
-
@afreytes, 👁️🗨️of🇵🇷 @Author-ized L.J. I always use a lot of hashtags. I have to. But many of my hashtags are not to increase discoverability. They're to trigger filtering, including filters that hide my content behind CW buttons. Such filters have been available on Mastodon since October, 2022 and here on Hubzilla (https://hubzilla.org, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubzilla, https://joinfediverse.wiki/Hubzilla) since its inception before Mastodon was even made.
This, by the way, is why some of my hashtags start with "CW": They're only there as content warning triggers/content warning substitutes, also because I have no means to add Mastodon-style content warnings to replies. Otherwise this comment would show the following CW on Mastodon:CW: long (over 4,700 characters), Fediverse meta, Fediverse-beyond-Mastodon meta, hashtag meta, content warning meta, character limit meta
However, unless I explicitly talk about certain hashtags, they all always go into the last line. And I think that even 20 hashtags in the last line of one of my posts or comments make people less uncomfortable than the post or comment exceeding 500 characters or myself talking about the Fediverse, especially talking about the Fediverse not only being Mastodon.
This comment, for example, would get the following hashtags (normally in the last line, but this time I'm talking about them):- Hashtags for content over 500 characters:
- #Long (= this message is over 500 characters long which makes some people uncomfortable)
- #LongPost (= this message is over 500 characters long which makes some people uncomfortable; two hashtags because I can't know who filters what)
- #CWLong (= this message is over 500 characters long which makes some people uncomfortable; hashtag version of "CW: long")
- #CWLongPost (= this message is over 500 characters long which makes some people uncomfortable; hashtag version of "CW: long"; two hashtags because I can't know who filters what)
- Hashtags for when I talk about the Fediverse:
- #FediMeta (= I'm talking about the Fediverse which makes some people uncomfortable)
- #FediverseMeta (= I'm talking about the Fediverse which makes some people uncomfortable; two hashtags because I can't know who filters what)
- #CWFediMeta (= I'm talking about the Fediverse which makes some people uncomfortable; hashtag version of "CW: Fediverse meta")
- #CWFediverseMeta (= I'm talking about the Fediverse which makes some people uncomfortable; hashtag version of "CW: Fediverse meta"; two hashtags because I can't know who filters what)
- Hashtags for when I talk about hashtags:
- #Hashtag (= I'm talking about hashtags; also for discovery)
- #Hashtags (= I'm talking about hashtags; also for discovery; two hashtags because I can't know who follows/searches for the singular and who follows/searches for the plural)
- #HashtagMeta (= I'm talking about hashtags and what I think about them which makes some people uncomfortable)
- #CWHashtagMeta (= I'm talking about hashtags and what I think about them which makes some people uncomfortable; hashtag version of "CW: hashtag meta")
- Hashtags for when I talk about content warnings:
- #CW (= I'm talking about content warnings; also for discovery)
- #CWs (= I'm talking about content warnings; also for discovery; two hashtags because I can't know who follows/searches for/filters the singular and who follows/searches for/filters the plural)
- #ContentWarning (= I'm talking about content warnings; also for discovery; multiple hashtags because I can't know who follows/searches for/filters what)
- #ContentWarnings (= I'm talking about content warnings; also for discovery; multiple hashtags because I can't know who follows/searches for/filters what)
- #CWMeta (= I'm talking about content warnings and what I think about them which makes some people uncomfortable)
- #ContentWarningMeta (= I'm talking about content warnings and what I think about them which makes some people uncomfortable; also for discovery; multiple hashtags because I can't know who filters what)
- Hashtags for when I talk about character limits:
- #CharacterLimit (= I'm talking about character limits; also for discovery)
- #CharacterLimits (= I'm talking about character limits; also for discovery; two hashtags because I can't know who follows/searches for the singular and who follows/searches for the plural)
- #CharacterLimitMeta (= I'm talking about character limits and what I, as someone with over 16.7 million characters, think about them which makes some people uncomfortable)
- #CWCharacterLimitMeta (= I'm talking about character limits and what I, as someone with over 16.7 million characters, think about them which makes some people uncomfortable; hashtag version of "CW: character limit meta")
- Hashtags for content over 500 characters:
-
CW: Misskey only allows for 512 characters of alt-text which is bad for my image posts; CW: long (over 8,600 characters), Fediverse meta, Fediverse-beyond-Mastodon meta, alt-text meta, character limit meta, content warning meta
Just the other day, I found something out. Something very inconvenient about Misskey and maybe also the Forkeys.
It should be commonly known that Misskey has a local limit of 3,000 characters for posts (which it refers to as "notes"). What is not so well-known is that Misskey has a limit of about 8,000 characters, probably 8,192 or so, for inbound messages, ironically fewer than this post is long. Also, it has a limit of 512 characters for alt-text, both locally and in-bound.
Mastodon has a character limit for in-bound content, too, at least for Note-type objects (not for Article-type objects because it refuses to render them fully and links to the original instead). To my best knowledge, it rejects messages with over 100,000 characters. As for its 1,500-charater limit for alt-text, it enforces that by truncating alt-text that's longer.
Misskey, in contrast, truncates everything that exceeds its limits while still letting it in. If your post is longer than the inbound limit of ca. 8,000, all excess characters are chopped off and thrown away. If your alt-text is longer than 512 characters, all excess characters are chopped off and thrown away.
I don't know which Forkey behaves how in this regard, seeing as all Forkeys I know about have a configurable local post character limit that can be adjusted to well over 8,000. But even if the inbound limit is configurable, too, I don't think any *key admin cranks it over 60,000 or over 70,000 or over 100,000. It's simply unimaginable that someone, anyone, could ever post that much at once if your idea of the Fediverse is pure microblogging.
Also, I don't know what *key users do when they come across a truncated post or what blind or visually-impaired *key users do when they come across a truncated alt-text. Do they even suspect that it's a truncated copy of something that's longer at its source and then go check the source? Either way, it's very inconvenient.
It's especially inconvenient for me. My longest posts by a gigantic margin are image posts with original images. They always have a long image description block in the post itself that tends to be tens of thousands of characters long. It contains highly detailed visual descriptions of all images in the post. It contains all explanations necessary to understand the post, the images and the descriptions. It contains verbatim transcripts of all bits of text within the borders of the image that I can read, no matter whether or not my audience can.
In addition, each image has a shorter description in the alt-text, along with a bit that announces the long description, including where to find it. I even used to explain how to get to that description for Mastodon users for whom the summary and content warning hides the post text, but not the images, depending on which Mastodon version and frontend they use. This alone took up several hundred characters in the alt-text. All in all, I got to a point in which my alt-texts always ended up either at precisely 1,500 characters or just a few characters short.
I myself am not really bound to character limits. I used to post images here on Hubzilla where I have over 16.7 million characters for the post, including all alt-texts. Now I post them on (streams) where I have over 24 million characters. I could theoretically write alt-texts as long as I want to, seeing as, unlike on Mastodon, they aren't separate text fields; instead, they're being woven into the image-embedding markup code in the post text.
Still, I stick to a maximum of 1,500 characters for alt-text to keep Mastodon from truncating it. If you post images into the Fediverse, the main audience for your alt-text is on Mastodon, and most of them don't understand that there's something, anything, out there in the Fediverse that does not work exactly like Mastodon. And 1,500 characters can be tight already.
But if I have to stay within Misskey's limits, I can hardly post images anymore. At least not with appropriate descriptions and explanations.
Since late 2024, I have been working on-and-off on a series of fairly simple avatar portraits or rather their image descriptions. The idea is for the long description to consist of a preamble that starts with a general summary, followed by explanations, then followed by visual descriptions of what all images in the post have in common. Next come the individual descriptions of each image. Each post shall have three or four images with three or four portraits each, all in the same pose, all with only minor differences in outfits, all with a neutral, bright white background.
In addition, of course, each image shall have an alt-text, and none of the alt-texts shall depend on each other.
Now, the problem is that I have to describe three or four individual portraits in each alt-text. I'm actually struggling to squeeze such a description plus the note that announces the long description into 1,500 characters, especially if I want to fulfill Veronica Lewis a.k.a. Veronica With Four Eyes' requirements for outfit descriptions to a tee in the alt-text as well (https://veroniiiica.com/how-to-write-alt-text-for-casual-outfits/, https://veroniiiica.com/writing-image-descriptions-for-red-carpet-outfits/; see also https://veroniiiica.com/how-to-write-alt-text-image-descriptions-visually-impaired/ and https://veroniiiica.com/how-to-create-visual-descriptions/).
But in 512 characters so that even Misskey users won't get a severely truncated version? This is absolutely impossible. Even if I limit the long description announcement to some 100 characters, even if I didn't walk people through how to get to the long description, I'd have fewer than 140 characters on average to describe each individual outfit.
The long description won't fare any better. Currently, the preamble starts with some 14,000 characters of explanations, most of which are necessary to understand the visual descriptions. But when Misskey goes and truncates the post at the 8,000-something mark, Misskey users won't even get to any visual description because all visual descriptions would be chopped off.
What makes matters worse is that the preamble grows the longer, the easier to understand I make it and the less I leave people with unexplained technical or jargon terms which you shouldn't use in image descriptions at all anyway. So the next time I go through it and rewrite it to make it easier to understand, I'll also make it even longer than it already is.
But what if I simply cut all the explanations? For one, I'd leave people to their own devices to understand extremely obscure niche content. They won't. My explanations aren't 14,000 characters long because I've artificially inflated them, but because there is so much to know before you understand the post and the images and the descriptions.
Besides, the visual descriptions alone won't fit into 8,192 characters either. What I currently have is over 5,000 characters of common visual description for all portraits in all images plus about 2,500 characters of individual visual description for the three portraits in the first image. That's over 7,500 characters altogether already. And I still have to describe nine portraits in another three images. The post will end up with some 15,000 characters of visual descriptions unless they grow longer when I simplify them again.
I guess users of Misskey or any Forkey will still have to put up with truncated alt-texts and truncated long descriptions in the future. But my future image posts will contain a paragraph at the beginning that explains that the post and/or the alt-text may be truncated on Misskey and the Forkeys, and that both are uncut at the source. Still, this means that *key users will have to put up with the extra hassle of opening my original post at a source with a quite cumbersome UI. And I've got my doubts that this UI is really accessible.
Unfortunately, this also means that *key users won't get any hashtags along with these posts. But then again, the handling of Identi.ca-style/Friendica-style hashtags with the number sign outside the link is broken on all *keys and will remain so for the foreseeable future.
#Long #LongPost #CWLong #CWLongPost #FediMeta #FediverseMeta #CWFediMeta #CWFediverseMeta #Misskey #Forkey #Forkeys #Calckey #Firefish #Sharkey #CherryPick #Iceshrimp #Iceshrimp-JS #AltText #AltTextMeta #CWAltTextMeta #ImageDescription #ImageDescriptions #ImageDescriptionMeta #CWImageDescriptionMeta #CW #CWs #CWMeta #ContentWarning #ContentWarnings #ContentWarningMeta #CharacterLimit #CharacterLimits #CharacterLimitMeta #CWCharacterLimitMeta #A11y #Accessibility -
CW: Misskey only allows for 512 characters of alt-text which is bad for my image posts; CW: long (over 8,600 characters), Fediverse meta, Fediverse-beyond-Mastodon meta, alt-text meta, character limit meta, content warning meta
Just the other day, I found something out. Something very inconvenient about Misskey and maybe also the Forkeys.
It should be commonly known that Misskey has a local limit of 3,000 characters for posts (which it refers to as "notes"). What is not so well-known is that Misskey has a limit of about 8,000 characters, probably 8,192 or so, for inbound messages, ironically fewer than this post is long. Also, it has a limit of 512 characters for alt-text, both locally and in-bound.
Mastodon has a character limit for in-bound content, too, at least for Note-type objects (not for Article-type objects because it refuses to render them fully and links to the original instead). To my best knowledge, it rejects messages with over 100,000 characters. As for its 1,500-charater limit for alt-text, it enforces that by truncating alt-text that's longer.
Misskey, in contrast, truncates everything that exceeds its limits while still letting it in. If your post is longer than the inbound limit of ca. 8,000, all excess characters are chopped off and thrown away. If your alt-text is longer than 512 characters, all excess characters are chopped off and thrown away.
I don't know which Forkey behaves how in this regard, seeing as all Forkeys I know about have a configurable local post character limit that can be adjusted to well over 8,000. But even if the inbound limit is configurable, too, I don't think any *key admin cranks it over 60,000 or over 70,000 or over 100,000. It's simply unimaginable that someone, anyone, could ever post that much at once if your idea of the Fediverse is pure microblogging.
Also, I don't know what *key users do when they come across a truncated post or what blind or visually-impaired *key users do when they come across a truncated alt-text. Do they even suspect that it's a truncated copy of something that's longer at its source and then go check the source? Either way, it's very inconvenient.
It's especially inconvenient for me. My longest posts by a gigantic margin are image posts with original images. They always have a long image description block in the post itself that tends to be tens of thousands of characters long. It contains highly detailed visual descriptions of all images in the post. It contains all explanations necessary to understand the post, the images and the descriptions. It contains verbatim transcripts of all bits of text within the borders of the image that I can read, no matter whether or not my audience can.
In addition, each image has a shorter description in the alt-text, along with a bit that announces the long description, including where to find it. I even used to explain how to get to that description for Mastodon users for whom the summary and content warning hides the post text, but not the images, depending on which Mastodon version and frontend they use. This alone took up several hundred characters in the alt-text. All in all, I got to a point in which my alt-texts always ended up either at precisely 1,500 characters or just a few characters short.
I myself am not really bound to character limits. I used to post images here on Hubzilla where I have over 16.7 million characters for the post, including all alt-texts. Now I post them on (streams) where I have over 24 million characters. I could theoretically write alt-texts as long as I want to, seeing as, unlike on Mastodon, they aren't separate text fields; instead, they're being woven into the image-embedding markup code in the post text.
Still, I stick to a maximum of 1,500 characters for alt-text to keep Mastodon from truncating it. If you post images into the Fediverse, the main audience for your alt-text is on Mastodon, and most of them don't understand that there's something, anything, out there in the Fediverse that does not work exactly like Mastodon. And 1,500 characters can be tight already.
But if I have to stay within Misskey's limits, I can hardly post images anymore. At least not with appropriate descriptions and explanations.
Since late 2024, I have been working on-and-off on a series of fairly simple avatar portraits or rather their image descriptions. The idea is for the long description to consist of a preamble that starts with a general summary, followed by explanations, then followed by visual descriptions of what all images in the post have in common. Next come the individual descriptions of each image. Each post shall have three or four images with three or four portraits each, all in the same pose, all with only minor differences in outfits, all with a neutral, bright white background.
In addition, of course, each image shall have an alt-text, and none of the alt-texts shall depend on each other.
Now, the problem is that I have to describe three or four individual portraits in each alt-text. I'm actually struggling to squeeze such a description plus the note that announces the long description into 1,500 characters, especially if I want to fulfill Veronica Lewis a.k.a. Veronica With Four Eyes' requirements for outfit descriptions to a tee in the alt-text as well (https://veroniiiica.com/how-to-write-alt-text-for-casual-outfits/, https://veroniiiica.com/writing-image-descriptions-for-red-carpet-outfits/; see also https://veroniiiica.com/how-to-write-alt-text-image-descriptions-visually-impaired/ and https://veroniiiica.com/how-to-create-visual-descriptions/).
But in 512 characters so that even Misskey users won't get a severely truncated version? This is absolutely impossible. Even if I limit the long description announcement to some 100 characters, even if I didn't walk people through how to get to the long description, I'd have fewer than 140 characters on average to describe each individual outfit.
The long description won't fare any better. Currently, the preamble starts with some 14,000 characters of explanations, most of which are necessary to understand the visual descriptions. But when Misskey goes and truncates the post at the 8,000-something mark, Misskey users won't even get to any visual description because all visual descriptions would be chopped off.
What makes matters worse is that the preamble grows the longer, the easier to understand I make it and the less I leave people with unexplained technical or jargon terms which you shouldn't use in image descriptions at all anyway. So the next time I go through it and rewrite it to make it easier to understand, I'll also make it even longer than it already is.
But what if I simply cut all the explanations? For one, I'd leave people to their own devices to understand extremely obscure niche content. They won't. My explanations aren't 14,000 characters long because I've artificially inflated them, but because there is so much to know before you understand the post and the images and the descriptions.
Besides, the visual descriptions alone won't fit into 8,192 characters either. What I currently have is over 5,000 characters of common visual description for all portraits in all images plus about 2,500 characters of individual visual description for the three portraits in the first image. That's over 7,500 characters altogether already. And I still have to describe nine portraits in another three images. The post will end up with some 15,000 characters of visual descriptions unless they grow longer when I simplify them again.
I guess users of Misskey or any Forkey will still have to put up with truncated alt-texts and truncated long descriptions in the future. But my future image posts will contain a paragraph at the beginning that explains that the post and/or the alt-text may be truncated on Misskey and the Forkeys, and that both are uncut at the source. Still, this means that *key users will have to put up with the extra hassle of opening my original post at a source with a quite cumbersome UI. And I've got my doubts that this UI is really accessible.
Unfortunately, this also means that *key users won't get any hashtags along with these posts. But then again, the handling of Identi.ca-style/Friendica-style hashtags with the number sign outside the link is broken on all *keys and will remain so for the foreseeable future.
#Long #LongPost #CWLong #CWLongPost #FediMeta #FediverseMeta #CWFediMeta #CWFediverseMeta #Misskey #Forkey #Forkeys #Calckey #Firefish #Sharkey #CherryPick #Iceshrimp #Iceshrimp-JS #AltText #AltTextMeta #CWAltTextMeta #ImageDescription #ImageDescriptions #ImageDescriptionMeta #CWImageDescriptionMeta #CW #CWs #CWMeta #ContentWarning #ContentWarnings #ContentWarningMeta #CharacterLimit #CharacterLimits #CharacterLimitMeta #CWCharacterLimitMeta #A11y #Accessibility -
@Hermann @Digitalcourage Das ist genau wie die typische Mastodon-Attitüde, daß es angeblich scheißegal ist, ob man "Mastodon" oder "Fediverse" sagt, weil es ja eh dasselbe ist. Eine weitverbreitete Denke unter denen, die aus erster Hand nur Mastodon kennen.
Aus der Sicht von jemandem wie ich, der nicht von Twitter über Mastodon ins Fediverse gekommen ist, sondern schon etwa fünf Jahre länger im Fediverse ist, als es Mastodon überhaupt gibt, ist es aber nicht dasselbe.
Und das beschränkt sich nicht darauf, daß auf Hubzilla (das selbst 10 Monate älter ist als Mastodon) nicht getrötet wird, weil Hubzilla nicht Mastodon ist, nicht von Mastodon abstammt und von der Entwicklung her nichts, aber auch gar nichts mit Mastodon zu tun hat.
Beispiel: "Mastodon führt jetzt Quote-Posts ein" ist korrekt. "Das Fediverse führt jetzt Quote-Posts ein" ist dagegen Bullshit. Das Fediverse hat Quote-Posts eingeführt im Juli 2010, fünfeinhalb Jahre vor dem Start von Mastodon, als Friendica gestartet wurde.
Anderes Beispiel: "CWs im CW-Feld sind Teil der Mastodon-Kultur" ist wieder korrekt. "CWs im CW-Feld sind Teil der Fediverse-Kultur" ist wieder Bullshit. Auf Friendica, Hubzilla, (streams) und Forte wird exakt dasselbe Textfeld seit jeher für Zusammenfassungen verwendet. Dieses Feld für CWs und nur für CWs zu verwenden, wird aufgefaßt als dumme Mastodon-Marotte. Außerdem haben alle vier schon immer eine sehr viel bessere Technologie für CWs, von der auf Mastodon niemand weiß, daß auch Mastodon sie im Oktober 2022 eingeführt hat. Das Threadiverse (Lemmy, die Reste von /kbin, Mbin, PieFed) hat und unterstützt dieses Feld gleich überhaupt nicht.
Noch ein Beispiel: Du kannst sagen, daß ich im Fediverse bin. Du kannst aber nicht sagen, daß ich auf Mastodon bin. Wie gesagt, ich schreibe hier von Hubzilla. Zusätzlich bin ich auf (streams) und Lemmy. Aber auf Mastodon bin ich nicht. Und da will ich auch gar nicht hin.
Also:
"Tröt" heißt es nur auf Mastodon.
"Tweet" heißt es nur auf Twitter.
Auf Misskey und seinen Forks heißt es "Note". (Kannst gern versuchen, einen Misskey-, Sharkey- oder CherryPick-Nutzer ins Gesicht zu sagen, daß es da "Tröt" heißt. Viel Spaß.)
Praktisch überall sonst heißt es "Post".
Und wenn es eine Antwort ist, heißt es auf WordPress, Ghost, Plume, Lemmy, /kbin, Mbin, PieFed, Friendica, Hubzilla, (streams) und Forte "Kommentar". Und nicht "Post" und schon gar nicht "Tweet" oder "Tröt".
#Long #LongPost #CWLong #CWLongPost #FediMeta #FediverseMeta #CWFediMeta #CWFediverseMeta #NichtNurMastodon #CW #CWs #CWMeta #ContentWarning #ContentWarnings #ContentWarningMeta #Post #Tröt #Tweet -
@crossgolf_rebel :calckey: :fckafd: FediCamp
es genügt manchen aber trotzdem nicht, weil sie zu bequem geworden sind, etwas selber zu tun.
Die allermeisten Fediverse-Nutzer sind ab 2022 von Twitter nach Mastodon gekommen und schon auf Twitter durch den Algorithmus total verhätschelt worden. Oder sagen wir, sie glauben das, weil sie dachten, ihr Content wird tatsächlich vollautomagisch an die verteilt, die das interessiert.
Als sie nach Mastodon gingen, hielten sie das für eine noch (nutzer)freundlichere riesige Kuschelecke, zumal sie da tatsächlich gefühlt noch mehr verhätschelt wurden. Oder zumindest anders.
Statt Projektauswahl und dann Instanzauswahl hat man sie praktischerweise direkt von Twitter nach mastodon.social gerailroadet, ohne sie auch nur mit der Information zu belästigen, daß es da draußen auch noch was anderes gibt. Das mußten sie erst erfahren, als sie es sich auf Mastodon schon gemütlich gemacht hatten.
Und jetzt erwarten sie, daß zum einen ihnen alles und zum anderen allen anderen Leuten ihr Content auf dem Silbertablett serviert wird, ohne daß sie dafür einen Finger krümmen. Sich für jeden Tröt erst irgendwelche Hashtags auszudenken, ist ja viiieeel zu anstrengend.
Also nutzen sie Mastodon weiter, wie sie Twitter genutzt haben. Komplett ohne Hashtags. Und sie warten darauf, daß "das Fediverse" endlich "einen Algorithmus" einführt, will sagen, genau den, den Twitter früher hatte.
Herrje, einige sind schon zum Selbertröten zu faul. Die haben das letzte Mal vor Wochen getrötet, wenn überhaupt. Aber sie boosten jeden Tag mindestens ein Dutzend Beiträge von anderen.Dabei ist das eine Selbstermächtigung, selber die Kontrolle haben zu können. Das muss man aber auch erst einmal wieder lernen und es auch wollen
Und genau das will keiner. Sieht man ja auch in anderen Bereichen.
Beispielsweise Inhaltswarnungen. Auf Friendica werden die optional für jeden User individuell automatisch von einem total simplen Textfilter generiert. Hubzilla hat das von Friendica geerbt, (streams) indirekt von Hubzilla, und es müßte mit dem Teufel zugehen, wenn das brandneue Forte das nicht mehr hätte. Und selbst Mastodon hat 2023 seine Filter so erweitert, daß sie Inhaltswarnungen generieren.
Das interessiert nur keinen. Nicht nur weiß auf Mastodon keine Sau, daß Friendica und Nachfahren das haben, weshalb sich Mastodon-Nutzer gerne aufregen über die fehlenden CWs und Massen an Hashtags von da. Nein, es weiß auch kaum jemand, daß Mastodon selbst inzwischen diese Funktionalität hat. Das dürfte allerdings auch daran liegen, daß fast alle auf Smartphone-Apps sind, die vermutlich allesamt keine Unterstützung dafür eingebaut haben und, wenn sie nicht gerade dieses Jahr ganz neu entwickelt wurden, nur Features von Mastodon 3 abdecken. Das heißt, viele Smartphone-Apps dürften überhaupt keine Bedienelemente für Filter haben, weshalb sehr viele Mastodon-User nicht wissen, daß Mastodon überhaupt Filter hat.
Aber selbst wenn sie von filtergenerierten Inhaltswarnungen wüßten, würden sie sie nicht nutzen. Erstens zu anstrengend. Zweitens noch anstrengender, wenn man erst diesen blöden nervigen Safari oder Chrome starten, die eigene Mastodon-Instanz googlen, sich auf der Weboberfläche einloggen und sich ans eigene Mastodon-Paßwort erinnern und dann auf der Weboberfläche, die man nie nutzt, die Filter suchen muß. Genau deswegen filtern viele überhaupt nicht. Ist bequemer, nach der Moderation zu plärren, wenn einen was stört, damit die das wegmacht.
Und drittens "macht" man das auf Mastodon nicht "so". Die gesamte Mastodon-Kultur, die viele versuchen, dem ganzen Fediverse aufzuzwingen, basiert auf dem Stand von Mastodon von Ende 2022, Anfang 2023. Nicht nur gab es damals noch keine CW-generierenden Filter, sondern 95% der Fediverse-Nutzer hatten von Mastodon noch gar keine Ahnung.
Also besteht man darauf, Inhaltswarnungen von allen anderen Nutzern im Summary-Feld serviert zu bekommen. Und zwar alle Inhaltswarnungen, die man selber haben will. Aber gleichzeitig auch nur genau die und keine anderen. Vor Katzenbildern muß zwingend jeder warnen, weil die nerven. Aber umgekehrt nerven Alkohol-Warnungen, man gönnt sich ja selber gerne mal ein lecker Bierchen.
Daß es dabei zwingend zu Interessenskonflikten kommen kann, scheint auf Mastodon noch niemand begriffen zu haben. Und daß diese nervenden Alkohol-Warnungen da sind, weil tausende Mastodon-Nutzer genau diese Alkohol-Warnungen wirklich brauchen und eingefordert haben, auch nicht.
Ein anderes Beispiel: Hubzilla, (streams) und höchstwahrscheinlich auch Forte haben umfangreiche, detaillierte Berechtigungseinstellungen, sogar individuell pro Kontakt, wo Mastodon nur Mute, Block und Moderatoren rufen hat. Auf (streams) sind sie sogar noch ein bißchen effizienter.
Trotzdem wechselt da von Mastodon kaum einer hin. Nach Hubzilla selten, nach (streams) überhaupt nicht.
Okay, man müßte wieder umziehen und was Neues lernen. Okay, die Weboberflächen sind nicht die benutzerfreundlichsten. Okay, für Hubzilla gibt's nur eine seit fast fünf Jahren nicht mehr gepflegte Android-App und für iOS sowie für (streams) gar nichts. Okay, sie alle funktionieren nicht mit Mastodon-Apps. Okay, es gibt keine automatisch generierten öffentlichen Listen von (streams)-Instanzen außer auf (streams)-Instanzen.
Aber sollten nicht die Vorteile die Nachteile überwiegen? Irgendeine Kröte muß man ja schlucken. Dafür bekäme man nicht nur nomadische Identität und fast unendlich Zeichen, sondern auch einen großen Schwung Selbstermächtigung durch Berechtigungen pro Nase und optional sogar Filter pro Nase.
Und auch wenn einer Umfrage zufolge mindestens 75% aller Fediverse-Nutzer noch nie von Hubzilla gehört haben: So ganz unbekannt sind Mikes Sachen nicht mehr. Mike macht ja inzwischen selber Werbung im Fediverse, und zwar auch mit (streams)' Mitteln der Selbstermächtigung.
Genau die will aber keiner. Ich wage zu behaupten, diese Werbung schreckt Mastodon-Nutzer nur zusätzlich ab. Die wollen nicht ermächtigt werden, sich selbst zu moderieren. Die wollen gar nix selber machen. Die wollen nur noch mehr verhätschelt werden.
Das ist auch einer der Hauptgründe, warum es nie ein BlackStreams oder BlackForte geben wird.
CC: @carla
#Long #LongPost #CWLong #CWLongPost #LangerPost #CWLangerPost #FediMeta #FediverseMeta #CWFediMeta #CWFediverseMeta #Fediverse #Mastodon #Friendica #Hubzilla #Streams #(streams) #Forte #CW #CWs #CWMeta #ContentWarning #ContentWarnings #ContentWarningMeta #Inhaltswarnung #Inhaltswarnungen #InhaltswarnungenMeta