#cwmeta — Public Fediverse posts
Live and recent posts from across the Fediverse tagged #cwmeta, aggregated by home.social.
-
@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 -
@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 -
@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 -
@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 -
@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 -
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 -
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 -
@Mrs. McGibbons 🧚♀️ This may be true for real-life cat photos. Just about the most simple images imaginable in the Fediverse.
But what if I don't just post real-life cat photos in which I don't have to describe much more than the cat? Because I don't post real-life cat photos. I don't post real-life photos at all unless they're meme templates.
My own original images are renderings from 3-D virtual worlds. Very obscure 3-D virtual worlds even. This means:- I can't forgo detail descriptions under the assumption that people know what stuff looks like anyway. I can't assume that anyone already knows what anything in my images looks like.
- Every other time, there's nothing particular in the image that matters more within the context of the post than everything else. Instead, the whole image with everything in it matters all the same.
- The other half of times, what matters within the context is irrelevant because the existence of 3-D virtual worlds is so intriguing to someone out there that they demand a full, detailed image description.
As for the actual alt-texts, I'll try to keep them at 512 characters or fewer, difficult as that will be. But I'll do that for technical reasons: While Misskey and its forks are supposed to truncate longer alt-texts at the 512-character mark, they actually delete them due to a bug. If I make them longer, users on Misskey, Sharkey, Iceshrimp-JS etc. will believe that I haven't written any alt-text in the first place.
But I will keep adding long, fully detailed image descriptions to the post text where I have much more room. I need room for sufficiently detailed descriptions, I need room for all the explanations necessary for people to understand the post and the images and the descriptions, and I often need room for all the text transcripts.
For example, do you know what the main building on Nebadon Izumi's Universal Campus looks like? Would it be sufficient for you if I just name-dropped it? Or must I describe what it looks like?
If so, well, that's 40,000 characters of description only for that building and what's visible inside it because the building mostly has glass panes for walls. 7,800 characters only for the front of a building that's five times as long as it's wide. 500 characters only for that one piece of structure around the main entrance doors. In fact, over 1,600 characters for the doors. Also, 3,200 characters for a teleport panel, including transcripts of 13 bits of text. Been there, done that, got the figures from there.
Don't worry, I will always hide long posts behind a summary with content warnings, including a warning about the post being tens of thousands of characters long due to the long image descriptions.
In fact, my meme posts will continue to be very long themselves, although not quite as long as posts with original pictures. Describing the visuals is easy most of the time, and it can be done in 512 characters or fewer. But they still need explanations. Otherwise, nobody will understand anything. All my meme posts are about obscure topics, too.
Now I'm wondering what's more likely to upset people and make them sanction me in some way, including blocking me without saying a word. Insufficient image descriptions? Insufficient alt-text in particular? Not putting all the text transcripts into the alt-text where many insist that they belong? Or posts behind summaries and CWs that indicate that these posts are 25,000, 40,000, 60,000 characters long?
But seriously, even if I cut down visual descriptions to a more normal level, which would come with its own nasty side-effects, I would still need to explain everything. So no, I can't keep image posts at 500 characters or fewer.
#Long #LongPost #CWLong #CWLongPost #FediMeta #FediverseMeta #CWFediMeta #CWFediverseMeta #CW #CWs #CWMeta #ContentWarning #ContentWarnings #ContentWarningMeta #AltText #AltTextMeta #CWAltTextMeta #ImageDescription #ImageDescriptions #ImageDescriptionMeta #CWImageDescriptionMeta -
@Mrs. McGibbons 🧚♀️ This may be true for real-life cat photos. Just about the most simple images imaginable in the Fediverse.
But what if I don't just post real-life cat photos in which I don't have to describe much more than the cat? Because I don't post real-life cat photos. I don't post real-life photos at all unless they're meme templates.
My own original images are renderings from 3-D virtual worlds. Very obscure 3-D virtual worlds even. This means:- I can't forgo detail descriptions under the assumption that people know what stuff looks like anyway. I can't assume that anyone already knows what anything in my images looks like.
- Every other time, there's nothing particular in the image that matters more within the context of the post than everything else. Instead, the whole image with everything in it matters all the same.
- The other half of times, what matters within the context is irrelevant because the existence of 3-D virtual worlds is so intriguing to someone out there that they demand a full, detailed image description.
As for the actual alt-texts, I'll try to keep them at 512 characters or fewer, difficult as that will be. But I'll do that for technical reasons: While Misskey and its forks are supposed to truncate longer alt-texts at the 512-character mark, they actually delete them due to a bug. If I make them longer, users on Misskey, Sharkey, Iceshrimp-JS etc. will believe that I haven't written any alt-text in the first place.
But I will keep adding long, fully detailed image descriptions to the post text where I have much more room. I need room for sufficiently detailed descriptions, I need room for all the explanations necessary for people to understand the post and the images and the descriptions, and I often need room for all the text transcripts.
For example, do you know what the main building on Nebadon Izumi's Universal Campus looks like? Would it be sufficient for you if I just name-dropped it? Or must I describe what it looks like?
If so, well, that's 40,000 characters of description only for that building and what's visible inside it because the building mostly has glass panes for walls. 7,800 characters only for the front of a building that's five times as long as it's wide. 500 characters only for that one piece of structure around the main entrance doors. In fact, over 1,600 characters for the doors. Also, 3,200 characters for a teleport panel, including transcripts of 13 bits of text. Been there, done that, got the figures from there.
Don't worry, I will always hide long posts behind a summary with content warnings, including a warning about the post being tens of thousands of characters long due to the long image descriptions.
In fact, my meme posts will continue to be very long themselves, although not quite as long as posts with original pictures. Describing the visuals is easy most of the time, and it can be done in 512 characters or fewer. But they still need explanations. Otherwise, nobody will understand anything. All my meme posts are about obscure topics, too.
Now I'm wondering what's more likely to upset people and make them sanction me in some way, including blocking me without saying a word. Insufficient image descriptions? Insufficient alt-text in particular? Not putting all the text transcripts into the alt-text where many insist that they belong? Or posts behind summaries and CWs that indicate that these posts are 25,000, 40,000, 60,000 characters long?
But seriously, even if I cut down visual descriptions to a more normal level, which would come with its own nasty side-effects, I would still need to explain everything. So no, I can't keep image posts at 500 characters or fewer.
#Long #LongPost #CWLong #CWLongPost #FediMeta #FediverseMeta #CWFediMeta #CWFediverseMeta #CW #CWs #CWMeta #ContentWarning #ContentWarnings #ContentWarningMeta #AltText #AltTextMeta #CWAltTextMeta #ImageDescription #ImageDescriptions #ImageDescriptionMeta #CWImageDescriptionMeta -
@Mrs. McGibbons 🧚♀️ This may be true for real-life cat photos. Just about the most simple images imaginable in the Fediverse.
But what if I don't just post real-life cat photos in which I don't have to describe much more than the cat? Because I don't post real-life cat photos. I don't post real-life photos at all unless they're meme templates.
My own original images are renderings from 3-D virtual worlds. Very obscure 3-D virtual worlds even. This means:- I can't forgo detail descriptions under the assumption that people know what stuff looks like anyway. I can't assume that anyone already knows what anything in my images looks like.
- Every other time, there's nothing particular in the image that matters more within the context of the post than everything else. Instead, the whole image with everything in it matters all the same.
- The other half of times, what matters within the context is irrelevant because the existence of 3-D virtual worlds is so intriguing to someone out there that they demand a full, detailed image description.
As for the actual alt-texts, I'll try to keep them at 512 characters or fewer, difficult as that will be. But I'll do that for technical reasons: While Misskey and its forks are supposed to truncate longer alt-texts at the 512-character mark, they actually delete them due to a bug. If I make them longer, users on Misskey, Sharkey, Iceshrimp-JS etc. will believe that I haven't written any alt-text in the first place.
But I will keep adding long, fully detailed image descriptions to the post text where I have much more room. I need room for sufficiently detailed descriptions, I need room for all the explanations necessary for people to understand the post and the images and the descriptions, and I often need room for all the text transcripts.
For example, do you know what the main building on Nebadon Izumi's Universal Campus looks like? Would it be sufficient for you if I just name-dropped it? Or must I describe what it looks like?
If so, well, that's 40,000 characters of description only for that building and what's visible inside it because the building mostly has glass panes for walls. 7,800 characters only for the front of a building that's five times as long as it's wide. 500 characters only for that one piece of structure around the main entrance doors. In fact, over 1,600 characters for the doors. Also, 3,200 characters for a teleport panel, including transcripts of 13 bits of text. Been there, done that, got the figures from there.
Don't worry, I will always hide long posts behind a summary with content warnings, including a warning about the post being tens of thousands of characters long due to the long image descriptions.
In fact, my meme posts will continue to be very long themselves, although not quite as long as posts with original pictures. Describing the visuals is easy most of the time, and it can be done in 512 characters or fewer. But they still need explanations. Otherwise, nobody will understand anything. All my meme posts are about obscure topics, too.
Now I'm wondering what's more likely to upset people and make them sanction me in some way, including blocking me without saying a word. Insufficient image descriptions? Insufficient alt-text in particular? Not putting all the text transcripts into the alt-text where many insist that they belong? Or posts behind summaries and CWs that indicate that these posts are 25,000, 40,000, 60,000 characters long?
But seriously, even if I cut down visual descriptions to a more normal level, which would come with its own nasty side-effects, I would still need to explain everything. So no, I can't keep image posts at 500 characters or fewer.
#Long #LongPost #CWLong #CWLongPost #FediMeta #FediverseMeta #CWFediMeta #CWFediverseMeta #CW #CWs #CWMeta #ContentWarning #ContentWarnings #ContentWarningMeta #AltText #AltTextMeta #CWAltTextMeta #ImageDescription #ImageDescriptions #ImageDescriptionMeta #CWImageDescriptionMeta -
@Mrs. McGibbons 🧚♀️ This may be true for real-life cat photos. Just about the most simple images imaginable in the Fediverse.
But what if I don't just post real-life cat photos in which I don't have to describe much more than the cat? Because I don't post real-life cat photos. I don't post real-life photos at all unless they're meme templates.
My own original images are renderings from 3-D virtual worlds. Very obscure 3-D virtual worlds even. This means:- I can't forgo detail descriptions under the assumption that people know what stuff looks like anyway. I can't assume that anyone already knows what anything in my images looks like.
- Every other time, there's nothing particular in the image that matters more within the context of the post than everything else. Instead, the whole image with everything in it matters all the same.
- The other half of times, what matters within the context is irrelevant because the existence of 3-D virtual worlds is so intriguing to someone out there that they demand a full, detailed image description.
As for the actual alt-texts, I'll try to keep them at 512 characters or fewer, difficult as that will be. But I'll do that for technical reasons: While Misskey and its forks are supposed to truncate longer alt-texts at the 512-character mark, they actually delete them due to a bug. If I make them longer, users on Misskey, Sharkey, Iceshrimp-JS etc. will believe that I haven't written any alt-text in the first place.
But I will keep adding long, fully detailed image descriptions to the post text where I have much more room. I need room for sufficiently detailed descriptions, I need room for all the explanations necessary for people to understand the post and the images and the descriptions, and I often need room for all the text transcripts.
For example, do you know what the main building on Nebadon Izumi's Universal Campus looks like? Would it be sufficient for you if I just name-dropped it? Or must I describe what it looks like?
If so, well, that's 40,000 characters of description only for that building and what's visible inside it because the building mostly has glass panes for walls. 7,800 characters only for the front of a building that's five times as long as it's wide. 500 characters only for that one piece of structure around the main entrance doors. In fact, over 1,600 characters for the doors. Also, 3,200 characters for a teleport panel, including transcripts of 13 bits of text. Been there, done that, got the figures from there.
Don't worry, I will always hide long posts behind a summary with content warnings, including a warning about the post being tens of thousands of characters long due to the long image descriptions.
In fact, my meme posts will continue to be very long themselves, although not quite as long as posts with original pictures. Describing the visuals is easy most of the time, and it can be done in 512 characters or fewer. But they still need explanations. Otherwise, nobody will understand anything. All my meme posts are about obscure topics, too.
Now I'm wondering what's more likely to upset people and make them sanction me in some way, including blocking me without saying a word. Insufficient image descriptions? Insufficient alt-text in particular? Not putting all the text transcripts into the alt-text where many insist that they belong? Or posts behind summaries and CWs that indicate that these posts are 25,000, 40,000, 60,000 characters long?
But seriously, even if I cut down visual descriptions to a more normal level, which would come with its own nasty side-effects, I would still need to explain everything. So no, I can't keep image posts at 500 characters or fewer.
#Long #LongPost #CWLong #CWLongPost #FediMeta #FediverseMeta #CWFediMeta #CWFediverseMeta #CW #CWs #CWMeta #ContentWarning #ContentWarnings #ContentWarningMeta #AltText #AltTextMeta #CWAltTextMeta #ImageDescription #ImageDescriptions #ImageDescriptionMeta #CWImageDescriptionMeta -
On the topic of filters, re-sharing a recent article, which I think some might find useful.
https://stefanbohacek.com/blog/on-fediverse-content-warnings-and-filters/
-
On the topic of filters, re-sharing a recent article, which I think some might find useful.
https://stefanbohacek.com/blog/on-fediverse-content-warnings-and-filters/
-
On the topic of filters, re-sharing a recent article, which I think some might find useful.
https://stefanbohacek.com/blog/on-fediverse-content-warnings-and-filters/
-
On the topic of filters, re-sharing a recent article, which I think some might find useful.
https://stefanbohacek.com/blog/on-fediverse-content-warnings-and-filters/
-
On the topic of filters, re-sharing a recent article, which I think some might find useful.
https://stefanbohacek.com/blog/on-fediverse-content-warnings-and-filters/
-
@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 -
@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 -
@Mark Whybird The whole alt-text would be a bad idea. Especially if showing the whole alt-text under each image is set to on by default or even hard-coded for everyone's "convenience".
Some of us write or have written extremely long alt-texts. All of my most recent alt-texts are either precisely 1,500 characters or only a very few characters short of it. I'll have to limit my future alt-texts to only 512 characters, but I won't shorten my existing ones. And in the rare case that someone decided to boost one of my image posts to your timeline, you'd have a massive block of 1,500 characters of alt-text underneath each image. On a comparatively small iPhone display even (desktop user here).
Do you really want that?
By the way: How does @Mona app handle images in posts with CWs? Does it hide them behind the CW like Mastodon's Web interface since 4.4.0? Or does it keep them visible underneath the CW'd post like Mastodon's Web interface before 4.4.0? Because in the latter case, I couldn't possibly CW long alt-texts away (while I already CW my long posts away whenever I can, namely whenever they aren't replies).
#Long #LongPost #CWLong #CWLongPost #FediMeta #FediverseMeta #CWFediMeta #CWFediverseMeta #AltText #AltTextMeta #CWAltTextMeta #CW #CWs #CWMeta #ContentWarning #ContentWarnings #ContentWarningMeta -
@Mark Whybird The whole alt-text would be a bad idea. Especially if showing the whole alt-text under each image is set to on by default or even hard-coded for everyone's "convenience".
Some of us write or have written extremely long alt-texts. All of my most recent alt-texts are either precisely 1,500 characters or only a very few characters short of it. I'll have to limit my future alt-texts to only 512 characters, but I won't shorten my existing ones. And in the rare case that someone decided to boost one of my image posts to your timeline, you'd have a massive block of 1,500 characters of alt-text underneath each image. On a comparatively small iPhone display even (desktop user here).
Do you really want that?
By the way: How does @Mona app handle images in posts with CWs? Does it hide them behind the CW like Mastodon's Web interface since 4.4.0? Or does it keep them visible underneath the CW'd post like Mastodon's Web interface before 4.4.0? Because in the latter case, I couldn't possibly CW long alt-texts away (while I already CW my long posts away whenever I can, namely whenever they aren't replies).
#Long #LongPost #CWLong #CWLongPost #FediMeta #FediverseMeta #CWFediMeta #CWFediverseMeta #AltText #AltTextMeta #CWAltTextMeta #CW #CWs #CWMeta #ContentWarning #ContentWarnings #ContentWarningMeta -
@Mark Whybird The whole alt-text would be a bad idea. Especially if showing the whole alt-text under each image is set to on by default or even hard-coded for everyone's "convenience".
Some of us write or have written extremely long alt-texts. All of my most recent alt-texts are either precisely 1,500 characters or only a very few characters short of it. I'll have to limit my future alt-texts to only 512 characters, but I won't shorten my existing ones. And in the rare case that someone decided to boost one of my image posts to your timeline, you'd have a massive block of 1,500 characters of alt-text underneath each image. On a comparatively small iPhone display even (desktop user here).
Do you really want that?
By the way: How does @Mona app handle images in posts with CWs? Does it hide them behind the CW like Mastodon's Web interface since 4.4.0? Or does it keep them visible underneath the CW'd post like Mastodon's Web interface before 4.4.0? Because in the latter case, I couldn't possibly CW long alt-texts away (while I already CW my long posts away whenever I can, namely whenever they aren't replies).
#Long #LongPost #CWLong #CWLongPost #FediMeta #FediverseMeta #CWFediMeta #CWFediverseMeta #AltText #AltTextMeta #CWAltTextMeta #CW #CWs #CWMeta #ContentWarning #ContentWarnings #ContentWarningMeta -
@Der böse Hexe Njähähä 🧙♀️🪄⚡️ @Mina Es ist eben eine auf Mastodon weitverbreitete Fehlannahme, daß Mastodons Kultur die Kultur des ganzen Fediverse ist. Und daß Mastodons ungeschriebene Regeln im ganzen Fediverse gelten. Und falls nicht, dann hat dieser Zustand aber schnellstmöglich hergestellt zu werden.
Das liegt auch daran, daß auf Mastodon kaum jemand weiß, inwiefern das Nicht-Mastodon-Fediverse anders ist und anders funktioniert als Mastodon. Oder auch, daß es einige Sachen schon deutlich länger im Fediverse gibt als Mastodon. Daß das Fediverse eben nicht mit Mastodon anfing und auch nicht alles, was nicht Mastodon ist, als Extra nachträglich an Mastodon drangeklebt worden ist.
Im Grunde sind sich nur diejenigen dessen bewußt, die schon lange hauptsächlich oder ausschließlich etwas anderes benutzen als Mastodon. Vor allem die, die eben nicht von Twitter über Mastodon ins Fediverse gekommen sind.Mastodon vs. Friendica
Das läßt sich sehr gut illustrieren im Vergleich zwischen Mastodon und Friendica. Mastodon ist eine puristische, spartanische Microblogging-Anwendung und versucht, ein Twitter-Klon zu sein. Friendica ist eine Social-Networking-Anwendung und Facebook-Alternative und gleichzeitig eine vollwertige Blogginganwendung mit allen Schikanen.
Mastodon ist von 2016. Friendica ist von 2010, gut fünfeinhalb Jahre älter als Mastodon. Als Mastodon startete, hat es sich mit Friendica verbunden und nicht umgekehrt.
Friendicas Kultur ist ungefähr so alt wie Friendica selbst. Mastodons Kultur, wie sie heute existiert, wurde dagegen geprägt Mitte 2022 von denjenigen, die im Februar und März von Twitter abgehauen sind, nachdem Elon Musk angekündigt hatte, es zu übernehmen.Wagenburgmentalität vs. totale Föderation
Ein Killerfeature von Friendica war immer, daß es sich mit allen möglichen und unmöglichen Sachen verbinden kann. Mit dem ganzen Fediverse sowieso. Aber auch mit diaspora*, mit Tumblr, mit Libertree, theoretisch sogar mit Twitter, früher tatsächlich sogar mit Facebook, per E-Mail, crossposten nach WordPress geht auch und so weiter und so fort. Damit wirbt Friendica ja auch, daß das geht.
So war es schon immer ein bombenfester Teil von Friendicas Kultur, daß man Kontakte überall hat. Im ganzen Fediverse und über das Fediverse hinaus.
Im krassen Gegensatz dazu steht Mastodon, wo buchstäblich jeder, aber auch wirklich jeder Neuling lernt, daß es nur mit sich selbst verbunden ist. Es gibt Mastodon-Nutzer, die erst nach Jahren erfahren, daß das Fediverse nicht nur Mastodon ist und Mastodon mit noch ganz anderen Sachen verbunden ist.
Je länger es aber dauert, bis man das weiß, desto mehr gewöhnt man sich an ein reines Mastodon-Fediverse. Desto schwerer fällt es, sich an ein Nicht-nur-Mastodon-Fediverse zu gewöhnen. Desto eher will man sogar wirklich ein reines Mastodon-Fediverse haben.
Blöderweise wurde Mastodons aktuelle Kultur aufgebaut von Leuten, die selbst zu der Zeit glaubten, das Fediverse sei nur Mastodon. Sonst wäre Mastodons Kultur nämlich für den Rest des Fediverse offener. Und so ist in Mastodons Kultur quasi eingebrannt, daß alles, was nicht Mastodon ist, ein ungewollter Eindringling ist.Wir waren zuerst da vs. wir waren wirklich zuerst da
Der Großteil der Mastodon-Nutzer glaubt, das Fediverse fing mit Mastodon an. Und so verhalten sie sich auch. Wir waren zuerst da, Mastodon war zuerst da, also ist Mastodon der Standard.
Die Friendica-Nutzer dagegen wissen, daß Friendica schon lange vor Mastodon da war. Viele Friendica-Nutzer sind ja selbst schon seit Zeiten dabei, als es Mastodon noch gar nicht gab. Folglich weigern sie sich, Mastodon als Ursprung des Fediverse anzuerkennen. Die meisten dürften nämlich wissen, daß der Ursprung des Fediverse StatusNet von 2008 war. Damit war Friendica übrigens auch verbunden.500 Zeichen vs. gar kein Limit
Anderes Beispiel: Mastodon hat ein festgelegtes Zeichenlimit von 500. Jeder Mastodon-Neuling gewöhnt sich da erstmal dran. Wenn man dann erstmals über einen Beitrag stolpert, der länger ist, dann ist das zutiefst (ver)störend, vor allem, wenn man die offizielle Mastodon-Smartphone-App benutzt, die lange Beiträge nicht einklappen kann.
Folglich ist es auf Mastodon in die Kultur eingebrannt, daß Beiträge mit über 500 Zeichen schlecht sind. Und es ist eine ungeschriebene Regel auf Mastodon, Beiträge, die über 500 Zeichen lang sind, in Threads zu zerschneiden. Zugegeben, die meisten Mastodon-Nutzer haben eh keine andere Wahl.
Auf Friendica ist das ganz anders. Da gab es nie ein definiertes Zeichenlimit. Da sind die Leute es seit jeher gewohnt, soviel auf einmal zu posten, wie sie wollen und müssen. Folglich gehen einigen die zerschnipselten Beiträge von Mastodon gehörig auf die Nerven, weil das den Lesefluß stört.
Und so stehen auf der einen Seite Mastodon-Nutzer, die Friendica-Nutzer dazu zwingen wollen, Beiträge, die länger als 500 Zeichen sind, zu zerschneiden. Auf der anderen Seite stehen Friendica-Nutzer, die zum einen genau das eben nicht nötig haben und zum anderen Mastodon-Nutzern empfehlen, wenn sie öfters mal etwas Langes zu posten haben, an einen Ort im Fediverse umzuziehen, wo sie mehr als nur 500 Zeichen haben. Aber sie sollen um Gottes Willen aufhören mit dieser Schnipselei.CWs vs. Zusammenfassungen plus NSFW
Noch ein Beispiel: das CW-Feld. Allgemeine Annahme auf Mastodon ist, daß es das so im ganzen Fediverse gibt und es somit auch Teil der Kultur im ganzen Fediverse ist, da vor potentiell verstörenden Inhalten zu warnen. Und das Feld im übrigen auch nur dafür zu nutzen.
Mastodon hat dieses Feld seit 2017.
Friendica hat dieses Feld seit 2010, seit es an den Start ging.
Aber: Auf Friendica war das nie ein CW-Feld. Auf Friendica war es schon immer und ist es heute noch ein Feld für Zusammenfassungen. Warum Zusammenfassungen? Weil es ziemlich viel Sinn ergibt, ein Feld für Zusammenfassungen zu haben, wenn man über 16 Millionen Zeichen auf einmal posten kann.
Und so ist in Friendicas Kultur eingebrannt, daß dieses Feld für Zusammenfassungen genutzt wird. Und nur für Zusammenfassungen.
Auf Mastodon ist genau dieser Sachverhalt derweil total unbekannt, auch weil kaum jemand auf Mastodon überhaupt weiß, daß Friendica existiert, und von denen, die das wissen, die meisten sich nicht vorstellen können, daß Friendica mit Mastodon verbunden ist. Also glaubt man, das Feld sei von Mastodon erfunden worden.
Aber wieso nur für Zusammenfassungen? Gibt's auf Friendica keine Inhaltswarnungen?
Doch. Aber die funktionieren völlig anders. Die werden nicht vom Autor eines Beitrags ausgestellt, sondern beim Leser vollautomatisch per Textfilter erzeugt. Auch das ist bombenfest in Friendicas Kultur eingebrannt, ebenso, daß man dann auch im Beitrag entsprechende Schlüsselwörter einbauen muß, damit das bei entsprechend sensiblen Lesern auch funktioniert.
Übrigens: Das kann auch Mastodon. Aber erst seit Oktober 2022, als Mastodons Kultur und Mastodons ungeschriebene Regeln schon in Stein gemeißelt waren. Und im übrigen wissen 99% von Mastodons Nutzern nicht, daß Mastodon das kann, und mindestens 80% nicht, daß Mastodon überhaupt Filter hat.
Folge:- Mastodon-Nutzer werfen Friendica-Nutzern vor, keine CWs zu setzen und das CW-Feld zu mißbrauchen (weil die Friendica-Nutzer das CW-Feld entweder für Zusammenfassungen oder gar nicht benutzen).
- Friendica-Nutzer werfen Mastodon-Nutzern vor, das Zusammenfassungsfeld für irgendwelchen Blödsinn zu mißbrauchen (weil die Mastodon-Nutzer ihre kryptischen Inhaltswarnungen ins Zusammenfassungsfeld packen).
- Mastodon-Nutzer werfen Friendica-Nutzern vor, unsinnige und/oder zuviele Hashtags zu verwenden (weil die Friendica-Nutzer genau das als Hashtags eintragen, was sie eigentlich ins CW-Feld eintragen sollen).
- Friendica-Nutzer werfen Mastodon-Nutzern vor, keine Schlüsselwörter zum Auslösen von NSFW in ihre Beiträge einzubauen (weil die Mastodon-Nutzer gar nicht wissen, daß sowas irgendwo im Fediverse existiert).
Solange es Mastodon-Nutzer gibt, die das Fediverse für nur Mastodon halten, solange es Mastodon-Nutzer gibt, die Mastodon als alleiniges Maß aller Dinge ansehen, solange Mastodon-Nutzern beim Onboarding nichts vom übrigen Fediverse erzählt wird (der Einfachheit halber, oder weil diejenigen, die sie einladen, es auch nicht besser wissen), solange Mastodon-Nutzer Nicht-Mastodon-Nutzer systematisch diskriminieren und gleichzeitig vehement abstreiten, irgendjemanden zu diskriminieren, solange wird der Frust nicht abklingen.
Jetzt kann man natürlich als reiner Mastodon-Nutzer, basiert und mastodongepillt, ankommen und sagen: "Die Lösung liegt doch auf der Hand! Friendica muß mehr wie Mastodon werden. Nur 500 Zeichen, Zusammenfassungsfeld in CW-Feld umbenennen, dieses blöde NSFW abschaffen, alle Protokolle außer ActivityPub rausschmeißen, und alles wird gut!"
Tja, dann kommen aber die Friendica-Veteranen. Qua "wir waren schon gut fünfeinhalb Jahre vor euch hier" und qua "Friendica ist objektiv die bessere und leistungsfähigere Software und Mastodon eine künstlich funktionsreduzierte Krücke, die sich nur durch Propaganda, sektenmäßige Gehirnwäsche ihrer Nutzer und vorsätzliche Inkompatibilität mit dem übrigen Fediverse halten kann". Und sie sagen: "Mastodon sollte viel eher sein blödes Zeichenlimit abschaffen, das CW-Feld in das umbenennen, was es schon auf Identi.ca war, Unterstützung für in sich geschlossene Konversationen einführen, Gruppen nach etablierten Fediverse-Standards einführen, volles HTML-Rendering zulassen bis hin zu beliebig vielen eingebetteten Bildern mitten im Beitrag und auch dieses bräsige Folgen-und-Gefolgtwerden durch standardmäßig gegenseitige Verbindungen ersetzen. Dann wäre das ein Gewinn für das ganze Fediverse!"
#Long #LongPost #CWLong #CWLongPost #LangerPost #CWLangerPost #FediMeta #FediverseMeta #CWFediMeta #CWFediverseMeta #Zeichenlimit #Zeichenlimits #ZeichenlimitMeta #CWZeichenlimitMeta #CW #CWs #CWMeta #ContentWarning #ContentWarnings #ContentWarningMeta #Fediverse #Mastodon #Friendica #NichtNurMastodon #MastodonKultur #MastodonZentrizität #MastodonNormativität -
@Der böse Hexe Njähähä 🧙♀️🪄⚡️ @Mina Es ist eben eine auf Mastodon weitverbreitete Fehlannahme, daß Mastodons Kultur die Kultur des ganzen Fediverse ist. Und daß Mastodons ungeschriebene Regeln im ganzen Fediverse gelten. Und falls nicht, dann hat dieser Zustand aber schnellstmöglich hergestellt zu werden.
Das liegt auch daran, daß auf Mastodon kaum jemand weiß, inwiefern das Nicht-Mastodon-Fediverse anders ist und anders funktioniert als Mastodon. Oder auch, daß es einige Sachen schon deutlich länger im Fediverse gibt als Mastodon. Daß das Fediverse eben nicht mit Mastodon anfing und auch nicht alles, was nicht Mastodon ist, als Extra nachträglich an Mastodon drangeklebt worden ist.
Im Grunde sind sich nur diejenigen dessen bewußt, die schon lange hauptsächlich oder ausschließlich etwas anderes benutzen als Mastodon. Vor allem die, die eben nicht von Twitter über Mastodon ins Fediverse gekommen sind.Mastodon vs. Friendica
Das läßt sich sehr gut illustrieren im Vergleich zwischen Mastodon und Friendica. Mastodon ist eine puristische, spartanische Microblogging-Anwendung und versucht, ein Twitter-Klon zu sein. Friendica ist eine Social-Networking-Anwendung und Facebook-Alternative und gleichzeitig eine vollwertige Blogginganwendung mit allen Schikanen.
Mastodon ist von 2016. Friendica ist von 2010, gut fünfeinhalb Jahre älter als Mastodon. Als Mastodon startete, hat es sich mit Friendica verbunden und nicht umgekehrt.
Friendicas Kultur ist ungefähr so alt wie Friendica selbst. Mastodons Kultur, wie sie heute existiert, wurde dagegen geprägt Mitte 2022 von denjenigen, die im Februar und März von Twitter abgehauen sind, nachdem Elon Musk angekündigt hatte, es zu übernehmen.Wagenburgmentalität vs. totale Föderation
Ein Killerfeature von Friendica war immer, daß es sich mit allen möglichen und unmöglichen Sachen verbinden kann. Mit dem ganzen Fediverse sowieso. Aber auch mit diaspora*, mit Tumblr, mit Libertree, theoretisch sogar mit Twitter, früher tatsächlich sogar mit Facebook, per E-Mail, crossposten nach WordPress geht auch und so weiter und so fort. Damit wirbt Friendica ja auch, daß das geht.
So war es schon immer ein bombenfester Teil von Friendicas Kultur, daß man Kontakte überall hat. Im ganzen Fediverse und über das Fediverse hinaus.
Im krassen Gegensatz dazu steht Mastodon, wo buchstäblich jeder, aber auch wirklich jeder Neuling lernt, daß es nur mit sich selbst verbunden ist. Es gibt Mastodon-Nutzer, die erst nach Jahren erfahren, daß das Fediverse nicht nur Mastodon ist und Mastodon mit noch ganz anderen Sachen verbunden ist.
Je länger es aber dauert, bis man das weiß, desto mehr gewöhnt man sich an ein reines Mastodon-Fediverse. Desto schwerer fällt es, sich an ein Nicht-nur-Mastodon-Fediverse zu gewöhnen. Desto eher will man sogar wirklich ein reines Mastodon-Fediverse haben.
Blöderweise wurde Mastodons aktuelle Kultur aufgebaut von Leuten, die selbst zu der Zeit glaubten, das Fediverse sei nur Mastodon. Sonst wäre Mastodons Kultur nämlich für den Rest des Fediverse offener. Und so ist in Mastodons Kultur quasi eingebrannt, daß alles, was nicht Mastodon ist, ein ungewollter Eindringling ist.Wir waren zuerst da vs. wir waren wirklich zuerst da
Der Großteil der Mastodon-Nutzer glaubt, das Fediverse fing mit Mastodon an. Und so verhalten sie sich auch. Wir waren zuerst da, Mastodon war zuerst da, also ist Mastodon der Standard.
Die Friendica-Nutzer dagegen wissen, daß Friendica schon lange vor Mastodon da war. Viele Friendica-Nutzer sind ja selbst schon seit Zeiten dabei, als es Mastodon noch gar nicht gab. Folglich weigern sie sich, Mastodon als Ursprung des Fediverse anzuerkennen. Die meisten dürften nämlich wissen, daß der Ursprung des Fediverse StatusNet von 2008 war. Damit war Friendica übrigens auch verbunden.500 Zeichen vs. gar kein Limit
Anderes Beispiel: Mastodon hat ein festgelegtes Zeichenlimit von 500. Jeder Mastodon-Neuling gewöhnt sich da erstmal dran. Wenn man dann erstmals über einen Beitrag stolpert, der länger ist, dann ist das zutiefst (ver)störend, vor allem, wenn man die offizielle Mastodon-Smartphone-App benutzt, die lange Beiträge nicht einklappen kann.
Folglich ist es auf Mastodon in die Kultur eingebrannt, daß Beiträge mit über 500 Zeichen schlecht sind. Und es ist eine ungeschriebene Regel auf Mastodon, Beiträge, die über 500 Zeichen lang sind, in Threads zu zerschneiden. Zugegeben, die meisten Mastodon-Nutzer haben eh keine andere Wahl.
Auf Friendica ist das ganz anders. Da gab es nie ein definiertes Zeichenlimit. Da sind die Leute es seit jeher gewohnt, soviel auf einmal zu posten, wie sie wollen und müssen. Folglich gehen einigen die zerschnipselten Beiträge von Mastodon gehörig auf die Nerven, weil das den Lesefluß stört.
Und so stehen auf der einen Seite Mastodon-Nutzer, die Friendica-Nutzer dazu zwingen wollen, Beiträge, die länger als 500 Zeichen sind, zu zerschneiden. Auf der anderen Seite stehen Friendica-Nutzer, die zum einen genau das eben nicht nötig haben und zum anderen Mastodon-Nutzern empfehlen, wenn sie öfters mal etwas Langes zu posten haben, an einen Ort im Fediverse umzuziehen, wo sie mehr als nur 500 Zeichen haben. Aber sie sollen um Gottes Willen aufhören mit dieser Schnipselei.CWs vs. Zusammenfassungen plus NSFW
Noch ein Beispiel: das CW-Feld. Allgemeine Annahme auf Mastodon ist, daß es das so im ganzen Fediverse gibt und es somit auch Teil der Kultur im ganzen Fediverse ist, da vor potentiell verstörenden Inhalten zu warnen. Und das Feld im übrigen auch nur dafür zu nutzen.
Mastodon hat dieses Feld seit 2017.
Friendica hat dieses Feld seit 2010, seit es an den Start ging.
Aber: Auf Friendica war das nie ein CW-Feld. Auf Friendica war es schon immer und ist es heute noch ein Feld für Zusammenfassungen. Warum Zusammenfassungen? Weil es ziemlich viel Sinn ergibt, ein Feld für Zusammenfassungen zu haben, wenn man über 16 Millionen Zeichen auf einmal posten kann.
Und so ist in Friendicas Kultur eingebrannt, daß dieses Feld für Zusammenfassungen genutzt wird. Und nur für Zusammenfassungen.
Auf Mastodon ist genau dieser Sachverhalt derweil total unbekannt, auch weil kaum jemand auf Mastodon überhaupt weiß, daß Friendica existiert, und von denen, die das wissen, die meisten sich nicht vorstellen können, daß Friendica mit Mastodon verbunden ist. Also glaubt man, das Feld sei von Mastodon erfunden worden.
Aber wieso nur für Zusammenfassungen? Gibt's auf Friendica keine Inhaltswarnungen?
Doch. Aber die funktionieren völlig anders. Die werden nicht vom Autor eines Beitrags ausgestellt, sondern beim Leser vollautomatisch per Textfilter erzeugt. Auch das ist bombenfest in Friendicas Kultur eingebrannt, ebenso, daß man dann auch im Beitrag entsprechende Schlüsselwörter einbauen muß, damit das bei entsprechend sensiblen Lesern auch funktioniert.
Übrigens: Das kann auch Mastodon. Aber erst seit Oktober 2022, als Mastodons Kultur und Mastodons ungeschriebene Regeln schon in Stein gemeißelt waren. Und im übrigen wissen 99% von Mastodons Nutzern nicht, daß Mastodon das kann, und mindestens 80% nicht, daß Mastodon überhaupt Filter hat.
Folge:- Mastodon-Nutzer werfen Friendica-Nutzern vor, keine CWs zu setzen und das CW-Feld zu mißbrauchen (weil die Friendica-Nutzer das CW-Feld entweder für Zusammenfassungen oder gar nicht benutzen).
- Friendica-Nutzer werfen Mastodon-Nutzern vor, das Zusammenfassungsfeld für irgendwelchen Blödsinn zu mißbrauchen (weil die Mastodon-Nutzer ihre kryptischen Inhaltswarnungen ins Zusammenfassungsfeld packen).
- Mastodon-Nutzer werfen Friendica-Nutzern vor, unsinnige und/oder zuviele Hashtags zu verwenden (weil die Friendica-Nutzer genau das als Hashtags eintragen, was sie eigentlich ins CW-Feld eintragen sollen).
- Friendica-Nutzer werfen Mastodon-Nutzern vor, keine Schlüsselwörter zum Auslösen von NSFW in ihre Beiträge einzubauen (weil die Mastodon-Nutzer gar nicht wissen, daß sowas irgendwo im Fediverse existiert).
Solange es Mastodon-Nutzer gibt, die das Fediverse für nur Mastodon halten, solange es Mastodon-Nutzer gibt, die Mastodon als alleiniges Maß aller Dinge ansehen, solange Mastodon-Nutzern beim Onboarding nichts vom übrigen Fediverse erzählt wird (der Einfachheit halber, oder weil diejenigen, die sie einladen, es auch nicht besser wissen), solange Mastodon-Nutzer Nicht-Mastodon-Nutzer systematisch diskriminieren und gleichzeitig vehement abstreiten, irgendjemanden zu diskriminieren, solange wird der Frust nicht abklingen.
Jetzt kann man natürlich als reiner Mastodon-Nutzer, basiert und mastodongepillt, ankommen und sagen: "Die Lösung liegt doch auf der Hand! Friendica muß mehr wie Mastodon werden. Nur 500 Zeichen, Zusammenfassungsfeld in CW-Feld umbenennen, dieses blöde NSFW abschaffen, alle Protokolle außer ActivityPub rausschmeißen, und alles wird gut!"
Tja, dann kommen aber die Friendica-Veteranen. Qua "wir waren schon gut fünfeinhalb Jahre vor euch hier" und qua "Friendica ist objektiv die bessere und leistungsfähigere Software und Mastodon eine künstlich funktionsreduzierte Krücke, die sich nur durch Propaganda, sektenmäßige Gehirnwäsche ihrer Nutzer und vorsätzliche Inkompatibilität mit dem übrigen Fediverse halten kann". Und sie sagen: "Mastodon sollte viel eher sein blödes Zeichenlimit abschaffen, das CW-Feld in das umbenennen, was es schon auf Identi.ca war, Unterstützung für in sich geschlossene Konversationen einführen, Gruppen nach etablierten Fediverse-Standards einführen, volles HTML-Rendering zulassen bis hin zu beliebig vielen eingebetteten Bildern mitten im Beitrag und auch dieses bräsige Folgen-und-Gefolgtwerden durch standardmäßig gegenseitige Verbindungen ersetzen. Dann wäre das ein Gewinn für das ganze Fediverse!"
#Long #LongPost #CWLong #CWLongPost #LangerPost #CWLangerPost #FediMeta #FediverseMeta #CWFediMeta #CWFediverseMeta #Zeichenlimit #Zeichenlimits #ZeichenlimitMeta #CWZeichenlimitMeta #CW #CWs #CWMeta #ContentWarning #ContentWarnings #ContentWarningMeta #Fediverse #Mastodon #Friendica #NichtNurMastodon #MastodonKultur #MastodonZentrizität #MastodonNormativität -
@Der böse Hexe Njähähä 🧙♀️🪄⚡️ @Mina Es ist eben eine auf Mastodon weitverbreitete Fehlannahme, daß Mastodons Kultur die Kultur des ganzen Fediverse ist. Und daß Mastodons ungeschriebene Regeln im ganzen Fediverse gelten. Und falls nicht, dann hat dieser Zustand aber schnellstmöglich hergestellt zu werden.
Das liegt auch daran, daß auf Mastodon kaum jemand weiß, inwiefern das Nicht-Mastodon-Fediverse anders ist und anders funktioniert als Mastodon. Oder auch, daß es einige Sachen schon deutlich länger im Fediverse gibt als Mastodon. Daß das Fediverse eben nicht mit Mastodon anfing und auch nicht alles, was nicht Mastodon ist, als Extra nachträglich an Mastodon drangeklebt worden ist.
Im Grunde sind sich nur diejenigen dessen bewußt, die schon lange hauptsächlich oder ausschließlich etwas anderes benutzen als Mastodon. Vor allem die, die eben nicht von Twitter über Mastodon ins Fediverse gekommen sind.Mastodon vs. Friendica
Das läßt sich sehr gut illustrieren im Vergleich zwischen Mastodon und Friendica. Mastodon ist eine puristische, spartanische Microblogging-Anwendung und versucht, ein Twitter-Klon zu sein. Friendica ist eine Social-Networking-Anwendung und Facebook-Alternative und gleichzeitig eine vollwertige Blogginganwendung mit allen Schikanen.
Mastodon ist von 2016. Friendica ist von 2010, gut fünfeinhalb Jahre älter als Mastodon. Als Mastodon startete, hat es sich mit Friendica verbunden und nicht umgekehrt.
Friendicas Kultur ist ungefähr so alt wie Friendica selbst. Mastodons Kultur, wie sie heute existiert, wurde dagegen geprägt Mitte 2022 von denjenigen, die im Februar und März von Twitter abgehauen sind, nachdem Elon Musk angekündigt hatte, es zu übernehmen.Wagenburgmentalität vs. totale Föderation
Ein Killerfeature von Friendica war immer, daß es sich mit allen möglichen und unmöglichen Sachen verbinden kann. Mit dem ganzen Fediverse sowieso. Aber auch mit diaspora*, mit Tumblr, mit Libertree, theoretisch sogar mit Twitter, früher tatsächlich sogar mit Facebook, per E-Mail, crossposten nach WordPress geht auch und so weiter und so fort. Damit wirbt Friendica ja auch, daß das geht.
So war es schon immer ein bombenfester Teil von Friendicas Kultur, daß man Kontakte überall hat. Im ganzen Fediverse und über das Fediverse hinaus.
Im krassen Gegensatz dazu steht Mastodon, wo buchstäblich jeder, aber auch wirklich jeder Neuling lernt, daß es nur mit sich selbst verbunden ist. Es gibt Mastodon-Nutzer, die erst nach Jahren erfahren, daß das Fediverse nicht nur Mastodon ist und Mastodon mit noch ganz anderen Sachen verbunden ist.
Je länger es aber dauert, bis man das weiß, desto mehr gewöhnt man sich an ein reines Mastodon-Fediverse. Desto schwerer fällt es, sich an ein Nicht-nur-Mastodon-Fediverse zu gewöhnen. Desto eher will man sogar wirklich ein reines Mastodon-Fediverse haben.
Blöderweise wurde Mastodons aktuelle Kultur aufgebaut von Leuten, die selbst zu der Zeit glaubten, das Fediverse sei nur Mastodon. Sonst wäre Mastodons Kultur nämlich für den Rest des Fediverse offener. Und so ist in Mastodons Kultur quasi eingebrannt, daß alles, was nicht Mastodon ist, ein ungewollter Eindringling ist.Wir waren zuerst da vs. wir waren wirklich zuerst da
Der Großteil der Mastodon-Nutzer glaubt, das Fediverse fing mit Mastodon an. Und so verhalten sie sich auch. Wir waren zuerst da, Mastodon war zuerst da, also ist Mastodon der Standard.
Die Friendica-Nutzer dagegen wissen, daß Friendica schon lange vor Mastodon da war. Viele Friendica-Nutzer sind ja selbst schon seit Zeiten dabei, als es Mastodon noch gar nicht gab. Folglich weigern sie sich, Mastodon als Ursprung des Fediverse anzuerkennen. Die meisten dürften nämlich wissen, daß der Ursprung des Fediverse StatusNet von 2008 war. Damit war Friendica übrigens auch verbunden.500 Zeichen vs. gar kein Limit
Anderes Beispiel: Mastodon hat ein festgelegtes Zeichenlimit von 500. Jeder Mastodon-Neuling gewöhnt sich da erstmal dran. Wenn man dann erstmals über einen Beitrag stolpert, der länger ist, dann ist das zutiefst (ver)störend, vor allem, wenn man die offizielle Mastodon-Smartphone-App benutzt, die lange Beiträge nicht einklappen kann.
Folglich ist es auf Mastodon in die Kultur eingebrannt, daß Beiträge mit über 500 Zeichen schlecht sind. Und es ist eine ungeschriebene Regel auf Mastodon, Beiträge, die über 500 Zeichen lang sind, in Threads zu zerschneiden. Zugegeben, die meisten Mastodon-Nutzer haben eh keine andere Wahl.
Auf Friendica ist das ganz anders. Da gab es nie ein definiertes Zeichenlimit. Da sind die Leute es seit jeher gewohnt, soviel auf einmal zu posten, wie sie wollen und müssen. Folglich gehen einigen die zerschnipselten Beiträge von Mastodon gehörig auf die Nerven, weil das den Lesefluß stört.
Und so stehen auf der einen Seite Mastodon-Nutzer, die Friendica-Nutzer dazu zwingen wollen, Beiträge, die länger als 500 Zeichen sind, zu zerschneiden. Auf der anderen Seite stehen Friendica-Nutzer, die zum einen genau das eben nicht nötig haben und zum anderen Mastodon-Nutzern empfehlen, wenn sie öfters mal etwas Langes zu posten haben, an einen Ort im Fediverse umzuziehen, wo sie mehr als nur 500 Zeichen haben. Aber sie sollen um Gottes Willen aufhören mit dieser Schnipselei.CWs vs. Zusammenfassungen plus NSFW
Noch ein Beispiel: das CW-Feld. Allgemeine Annahme auf Mastodon ist, daß es das so im ganzen Fediverse gibt und es somit auch Teil der Kultur im ganzen Fediverse ist, da vor potentiell verstörenden Inhalten zu warnen. Und das Feld im übrigen auch nur dafür zu nutzen.
Mastodon hat dieses Feld seit 2017.
Friendica hat dieses Feld seit 2010, seit es an den Start ging.
Aber: Auf Friendica war das nie ein CW-Feld. Auf Friendica war es schon immer und ist es heute noch ein Feld für Zusammenfassungen. Warum Zusammenfassungen? Weil es ziemlich viel Sinn ergibt, ein Feld für Zusammenfassungen zu haben, wenn man über 16 Millionen Zeichen auf einmal posten kann.
Und so ist in Friendicas Kultur eingebrannt, daß dieses Feld für Zusammenfassungen genutzt wird. Und nur für Zusammenfassungen.
Auf Mastodon ist genau dieser Sachverhalt derweil total unbekannt, auch weil kaum jemand auf Mastodon überhaupt weiß, daß Friendica existiert, und von denen, die das wissen, die meisten sich nicht vorstellen können, daß Friendica mit Mastodon verbunden ist. Also glaubt man, das Feld sei von Mastodon erfunden worden.
Aber wieso nur für Zusammenfassungen? Gibt's auf Friendica keine Inhaltswarnungen?
Doch. Aber die funktionieren völlig anders. Die werden nicht vom Autor eines Beitrags ausgestellt, sondern beim Leser vollautomatisch per Textfilter erzeugt. Auch das ist bombenfest in Friendicas Kultur eingebrannt, ebenso, daß man dann auch im Beitrag entsprechende Schlüsselwörter einbauen muß, damit das bei entsprechend sensiblen Lesern auch funktioniert.
Übrigens: Das kann auch Mastodon. Aber erst seit Oktober 2022, als Mastodons Kultur und Mastodons ungeschriebene Regeln schon in Stein gemeißelt waren. Und im übrigen wissen 99% von Mastodons Nutzern nicht, daß Mastodon das kann, und mindestens 80% nicht, daß Mastodon überhaupt Filter hat.
Folge:- Mastodon-Nutzer werfen Friendica-Nutzern vor, keine CWs zu setzen und das CW-Feld zu mißbrauchen (weil die Friendica-Nutzer das CW-Feld entweder für Zusammenfassungen oder gar nicht benutzen).
- Friendica-Nutzer werfen Mastodon-Nutzern vor, das Zusammenfassungsfeld für irgendwelchen Blödsinn zu mißbrauchen (weil die Mastodon-Nutzer ihre kryptischen Inhaltswarnungen ins Zusammenfassungsfeld packen).
- Mastodon-Nutzer werfen Friendica-Nutzern vor, unsinnige und/oder zuviele Hashtags zu verwenden (weil die Friendica-Nutzer genau das als Hashtags eintragen, was sie eigentlich ins CW-Feld eintragen sollen).
- Friendica-Nutzer werfen Mastodon-Nutzern vor, keine Schlüsselwörter zum Auslösen von NSFW in ihre Beiträge einzubauen (weil die Mastodon-Nutzer gar nicht wissen, daß sowas irgendwo im Fediverse existiert).
Solange es Mastodon-Nutzer gibt, die das Fediverse für nur Mastodon halten, solange es Mastodon-Nutzer gibt, die Mastodon als alleiniges Maß aller Dinge ansehen, solange Mastodon-Nutzern beim Onboarding nichts vom übrigen Fediverse erzählt wird (der Einfachheit halber, oder weil diejenigen, die sie einladen, es auch nicht besser wissen), solange Mastodon-Nutzer Nicht-Mastodon-Nutzer systematisch diskriminieren und gleichzeitig vehement abstreiten, irgendjemanden zu diskriminieren, solange wird der Frust nicht abklingen.
Jetzt kann man natürlich als reiner Mastodon-Nutzer, basiert und mastodongepillt, ankommen und sagen: "Die Lösung liegt doch auf der Hand! Friendica muß mehr wie Mastodon werden. Nur 500 Zeichen, Zusammenfassungsfeld in CW-Feld umbenennen, dieses blöde NSFW abschaffen, alle Protokolle außer ActivityPub rausschmeißen, und alles wird gut!"
Tja, dann kommen aber die Friendica-Veteranen. Qua "wir waren schon gut fünfeinhalb Jahre vor euch hier" und qua "Friendica ist objektiv die bessere und leistungsfähigere Software und Mastodon eine künstlich funktionsreduzierte Krücke, die sich nur durch Propaganda, sektenmäßige Gehirnwäsche ihrer Nutzer und vorsätzliche Inkompatibilität mit dem übrigen Fediverse halten kann". Und sie sagen: "Mastodon sollte viel eher sein blödes Zeichenlimit abschaffen, das CW-Feld in das umbenennen, was es schon auf Identi.ca war, Unterstützung für in sich geschlossene Konversationen einführen, Gruppen nach etablierten Fediverse-Standards einführen, volles HTML-Rendering zulassen bis hin zu beliebig vielen eingebetteten Bildern mitten im Beitrag und auch dieses bräsige Folgen-und-Gefolgtwerden durch standardmäßig gegenseitige Verbindungen ersetzen. Dann wäre das ein Gewinn für das ganze Fediverse!"
#Long #LongPost #CWLong #CWLongPost #LangerPost #CWLangerPost #FediMeta #FediverseMeta #CWFediMeta #CWFediverseMeta #Zeichenlimit #Zeichenlimits #ZeichenlimitMeta #CWZeichenlimitMeta #CW #CWs #CWMeta #ContentWarning #ContentWarnings #ContentWarningMeta #Fediverse #Mastodon #Friendica #NichtNurMastodon #MastodonKultur #MastodonZentrizität #MastodonNormativität -
@Der böse Hexe Njähähä 🧙♀️🪄⚡️ @Mina Es ist eben eine auf Mastodon weitverbreitete Fehlannahme, daß Mastodons Kultur die Kultur des ganzen Fediverse ist. Und daß Mastodons ungeschriebene Regeln im ganzen Fediverse gelten. Und falls nicht, dann hat dieser Zustand aber schnellstmöglich hergestellt zu werden.
Das liegt auch daran, daß auf Mastodon kaum jemand weiß, inwiefern das Nicht-Mastodon-Fediverse anders ist und anders funktioniert als Mastodon. Oder auch, daß es einige Sachen schon deutlich länger im Fediverse gibt als Mastodon. Daß das Fediverse eben nicht mit Mastodon anfing und auch nicht alles, was nicht Mastodon ist, als Extra nachträglich an Mastodon drangeklebt worden ist.
Im Grunde sind sich nur diejenigen dessen bewußt, die schon lange hauptsächlich oder ausschließlich etwas anderes benutzen als Mastodon. Vor allem die, die eben nicht von Twitter über Mastodon ins Fediverse gekommen sind.Mastodon vs. Friendica
Das läßt sich sehr gut illustrieren im Vergleich zwischen Mastodon und Friendica. Mastodon ist eine puristische, spartanische Microblogging-Anwendung und versucht, ein Twitter-Klon zu sein. Friendica ist eine Social-Networking-Anwendung und Facebook-Alternative und gleichzeitig eine vollwertige Blogginganwendung mit allen Schikanen.
Mastodon ist von 2016. Friendica ist von 2010, gut fünfeinhalb Jahre älter als Mastodon. Als Mastodon startete, hat es sich mit Friendica verbunden und nicht umgekehrt.
Friendicas Kultur ist ungefähr so alt wie Friendica selbst. Mastodons Kultur, wie sie heute existiert, wurde dagegen geprägt Mitte 2022 von denjenigen, die im Februar und März von Twitter abgehauen sind, nachdem Elon Musk angekündigt hatte, es zu übernehmen.Wagenburgmentalität vs. totale Föderation
Ein Killerfeature von Friendica war immer, daß es sich mit allen möglichen und unmöglichen Sachen verbinden kann. Mit dem ganzen Fediverse sowieso. Aber auch mit diaspora*, mit Tumblr, mit Libertree, theoretisch sogar mit Twitter, früher tatsächlich sogar mit Facebook, per E-Mail, crossposten nach WordPress geht auch und so weiter und so fort. Damit wirbt Friendica ja auch, daß das geht.
So war es schon immer ein bombenfester Teil von Friendicas Kultur, daß man Kontakte überall hat. Im ganzen Fediverse und über das Fediverse hinaus.
Im krassen Gegensatz dazu steht Mastodon, wo buchstäblich jeder, aber auch wirklich jeder Neuling lernt, daß es nur mit sich selbst verbunden ist. Es gibt Mastodon-Nutzer, die erst nach Jahren erfahren, daß das Fediverse nicht nur Mastodon ist und Mastodon mit noch ganz anderen Sachen verbunden ist.
Je länger es aber dauert, bis man das weiß, desto mehr gewöhnt man sich an ein reines Mastodon-Fediverse. Desto schwerer fällt es, sich an ein Nicht-nur-Mastodon-Fediverse zu gewöhnen. Desto eher will man sogar wirklich ein reines Mastodon-Fediverse haben.
Blöderweise wurde Mastodons aktuelle Kultur aufgebaut von Leuten, die selbst zu der Zeit glaubten, das Fediverse sei nur Mastodon. Sonst wäre Mastodons Kultur nämlich für den Rest des Fediverse offener. Und so ist in Mastodons Kultur quasi eingebrannt, daß alles, was nicht Mastodon ist, ein ungewollter Eindringling ist.Wir waren zuerst da vs. wir waren wirklich zuerst da
Der Großteil der Mastodon-Nutzer glaubt, das Fediverse fing mit Mastodon an. Und so verhalten sie sich auch. Wir waren zuerst da, Mastodon war zuerst da, also ist Mastodon der Standard.
Die Friendica-Nutzer dagegen wissen, daß Friendica schon lange vor Mastodon da war. Viele Friendica-Nutzer sind ja selbst schon seit Zeiten dabei, als es Mastodon noch gar nicht gab. Folglich weigern sie sich, Mastodon als Ursprung des Fediverse anzuerkennen. Die meisten dürften nämlich wissen, daß der Ursprung des Fediverse StatusNet von 2008 war. Damit war Friendica übrigens auch verbunden.500 Zeichen vs. gar kein Limit
Anderes Beispiel: Mastodon hat ein festgelegtes Zeichenlimit von 500. Jeder Mastodon-Neuling gewöhnt sich da erstmal dran. Wenn man dann erstmals über einen Beitrag stolpert, der länger ist, dann ist das zutiefst (ver)störend, vor allem, wenn man die offizielle Mastodon-Smartphone-App benutzt, die lange Beiträge nicht einklappen kann.
Folglich ist es auf Mastodon in die Kultur eingebrannt, daß Beiträge mit über 500 Zeichen schlecht sind. Und es ist eine ungeschriebene Regel auf Mastodon, Beiträge, die über 500 Zeichen lang sind, in Threads zu zerschneiden. Zugegeben, die meisten Mastodon-Nutzer haben eh keine andere Wahl.
Auf Friendica ist das ganz anders. Da gab es nie ein definiertes Zeichenlimit. Da sind die Leute es seit jeher gewohnt, soviel auf einmal zu posten, wie sie wollen und müssen. Folglich gehen einigen die zerschnipselten Beiträge von Mastodon gehörig auf die Nerven, weil das den Lesefluß stört.
Und so stehen auf der einen Seite Mastodon-Nutzer, die Friendica-Nutzer dazu zwingen wollen, Beiträge, die länger als 500 Zeichen sind, zu zerschneiden. Auf der anderen Seite stehen Friendica-Nutzer, die zum einen genau das eben nicht nötig haben und zum anderen Mastodon-Nutzern empfehlen, wenn sie öfters mal etwas Langes zu posten haben, an einen Ort im Fediverse umzuziehen, wo sie mehr als nur 500 Zeichen haben. Aber sie sollen um Gottes Willen aufhören mit dieser Schnipselei.CWs vs. Zusammenfassungen plus NSFW
Noch ein Beispiel: das CW-Feld. Allgemeine Annahme auf Mastodon ist, daß es das so im ganzen Fediverse gibt und es somit auch Teil der Kultur im ganzen Fediverse ist, da vor potentiell verstörenden Inhalten zu warnen. Und das Feld im übrigen auch nur dafür zu nutzen.
Mastodon hat dieses Feld seit 2017.
Friendica hat dieses Feld seit 2010, seit es an den Start ging.
Aber: Auf Friendica war das nie ein CW-Feld. Auf Friendica war es schon immer und ist es heute noch ein Feld für Zusammenfassungen. Warum Zusammenfassungen? Weil es ziemlich viel Sinn ergibt, ein Feld für Zusammenfassungen zu haben, wenn man über 16 Millionen Zeichen auf einmal posten kann.
Und so ist in Friendicas Kultur eingebrannt, daß dieses Feld für Zusammenfassungen genutzt wird. Und nur für Zusammenfassungen.
Auf Mastodon ist genau dieser Sachverhalt derweil total unbekannt, auch weil kaum jemand auf Mastodon überhaupt weiß, daß Friendica existiert, und von denen, die das wissen, die meisten sich nicht vorstellen können, daß Friendica mit Mastodon verbunden ist. Also glaubt man, das Feld sei von Mastodon erfunden worden.
Aber wieso nur für Zusammenfassungen? Gibt's auf Friendica keine Inhaltswarnungen?
Doch. Aber die funktionieren völlig anders. Die werden nicht vom Autor eines Beitrags ausgestellt, sondern beim Leser vollautomatisch per Textfilter erzeugt. Auch das ist bombenfest in Friendicas Kultur eingebrannt, ebenso, daß man dann auch im Beitrag entsprechende Schlüsselwörter einbauen muß, damit das bei entsprechend sensiblen Lesern auch funktioniert.
Übrigens: Das kann auch Mastodon. Aber erst seit Oktober 2022, als Mastodons Kultur und Mastodons ungeschriebene Regeln schon in Stein gemeißelt waren. Und im übrigen wissen 99% von Mastodons Nutzern nicht, daß Mastodon das kann, und mindestens 80% nicht, daß Mastodon überhaupt Filter hat.
Folge:- Mastodon-Nutzer werfen Friendica-Nutzern vor, keine CWs zu setzen und das CW-Feld zu mißbrauchen (weil die Friendica-Nutzer das CW-Feld entweder für Zusammenfassungen oder gar nicht benutzen).
- Friendica-Nutzer werfen Mastodon-Nutzern vor, das Zusammenfassungsfeld für irgendwelchen Blödsinn zu mißbrauchen (weil die Mastodon-Nutzer ihre kryptischen Inhaltswarnungen ins Zusammenfassungsfeld packen).
- Mastodon-Nutzer werfen Friendica-Nutzern vor, unsinnige und/oder zuviele Hashtags zu verwenden (weil die Friendica-Nutzer genau das als Hashtags eintragen, was sie eigentlich ins CW-Feld eintragen sollen).
- Friendica-Nutzer werfen Mastodon-Nutzern vor, keine Schlüsselwörter zum Auslösen von NSFW in ihre Beiträge einzubauen (weil die Mastodon-Nutzer gar nicht wissen, daß sowas irgendwo im Fediverse existiert).
Solange es Mastodon-Nutzer gibt, die das Fediverse für nur Mastodon halten, solange es Mastodon-Nutzer gibt, die Mastodon als alleiniges Maß aller Dinge ansehen, solange Mastodon-Nutzern beim Onboarding nichts vom übrigen Fediverse erzählt wird (der Einfachheit halber, oder weil diejenigen, die sie einladen, es auch nicht besser wissen), solange Mastodon-Nutzer Nicht-Mastodon-Nutzer systematisch diskriminieren und gleichzeitig vehement abstreiten, irgendjemanden zu diskriminieren, solange wird der Frust nicht abklingen.
Jetzt kann man natürlich als reiner Mastodon-Nutzer, basiert und mastodongepillt, ankommen und sagen: "Die Lösung liegt doch auf der Hand! Friendica muß mehr wie Mastodon werden. Nur 500 Zeichen, Zusammenfassungsfeld in CW-Feld umbenennen, dieses blöde NSFW abschaffen, alle Protokolle außer ActivityPub rausschmeißen, und alles wird gut!"
Tja, dann kommen aber die Friendica-Veteranen. Qua "wir waren schon gut fünfeinhalb Jahre vor euch hier" und qua "Friendica ist objektiv die bessere und leistungsfähigere Software und Mastodon eine künstlich funktionsreduzierte Krücke, die sich nur durch Propaganda, sektenmäßige Gehirnwäsche ihrer Nutzer und vorsätzliche Inkompatibilität mit dem übrigen Fediverse halten kann". Und sie sagen: "Mastodon sollte viel eher sein blödes Zeichenlimit abschaffen, das CW-Feld in das umbenennen, was es schon auf Identi.ca war, Unterstützung für in sich geschlossene Konversationen einführen, Gruppen nach etablierten Fediverse-Standards einführen, volles HTML-Rendering zulassen bis hin zu beliebig vielen eingebetteten Bildern mitten im Beitrag und auch dieses bräsige Folgen-und-Gefolgtwerden durch standardmäßig gegenseitige Verbindungen ersetzen. Dann wäre das ein Gewinn für das ganze Fediverse!"
#Long #LongPost #CWLong #CWLongPost #LangerPost #CWLangerPost #FediMeta #FediverseMeta #CWFediMeta #CWFediverseMeta #Zeichenlimit #Zeichenlimits #ZeichenlimitMeta #CWZeichenlimitMeta #CW #CWs #CWMeta #ContentWarning #ContentWarnings #ContentWarningMeta #Fediverse #Mastodon #Friendica #NichtNurMastodon #MastodonKultur #MastodonZentrizität #MastodonNormativität -
@Der böse Hexe Njähähä 🧙♀️🪄⚡️ @Mina Es ist eben eine auf Mastodon weitverbreitete Fehlannahme, daß Mastodons Kultur die Kultur des ganzen Fediverse ist. Und daß Mastodons ungeschriebene Regeln im ganzen Fediverse gelten. Und falls nicht, dann hat dieser Zustand aber schnellstmöglich hergestellt zu werden.
Das liegt auch daran, daß auf Mastodon kaum jemand weiß, inwiefern das Nicht-Mastodon-Fediverse anders ist und anders funktioniert als Mastodon. Oder auch, daß es einige Sachen schon deutlich länger im Fediverse gibt als Mastodon. Daß das Fediverse eben nicht mit Mastodon anfing und auch nicht alles, was nicht Mastodon ist, als Extra nachträglich an Mastodon drangeklebt worden ist.
Im Grunde sind sich nur diejenigen dessen bewußt, die schon lange hauptsächlich oder ausschließlich etwas anderes benutzen als Mastodon. Vor allem die, die eben nicht von Twitter über Mastodon ins Fediverse gekommen sind.Mastodon vs. Friendica
Das läßt sich sehr gut illustrieren im Vergleich zwischen Mastodon und Friendica. Mastodon ist eine puristische, spartanische Microblogging-Anwendung und versucht, ein Twitter-Klon zu sein. Friendica ist eine Social-Networking-Anwendung und Facebook-Alternative und gleichzeitig eine vollwertige Blogginganwendung mit allen Schikanen.
Mastodon ist von 2016. Friendica ist von 2010, gut fünfeinhalb Jahre älter als Mastodon. Als Mastodon startete, hat es sich mit Friendica verbunden und nicht umgekehrt.
Friendicas Kultur ist ungefähr so alt wie Friendica selbst. Mastodons Kultur, wie sie heute existiert, wurde dagegen geprägt Mitte 2022 von denjenigen, die im Februar und März von Twitter abgehauen sind, nachdem Elon Musk angekündigt hatte, es zu übernehmen.Wagenburgmentalität vs. totale Föderation
Ein Killerfeature von Friendica war immer, daß es sich mit allen möglichen und unmöglichen Sachen verbinden kann. Mit dem ganzen Fediverse sowieso. Aber auch mit diaspora*, mit Tumblr, mit Libertree, theoretisch sogar mit Twitter, früher tatsächlich sogar mit Facebook, per E-Mail, crossposten nach WordPress geht auch und so weiter und so fort. Damit wirbt Friendica ja auch, daß das geht.
So war es schon immer ein bombenfester Teil von Friendicas Kultur, daß man Kontakte überall hat. Im ganzen Fediverse und über das Fediverse hinaus.
Im krassen Gegensatz dazu steht Mastodon, wo buchstäblich jeder, aber auch wirklich jeder Neuling lernt, daß es nur mit sich selbst verbunden ist. Es gibt Mastodon-Nutzer, die erst nach Jahren erfahren, daß das Fediverse nicht nur Mastodon ist und Mastodon mit noch ganz anderen Sachen verbunden ist.
Je länger es aber dauert, bis man das weiß, desto mehr gewöhnt man sich an ein reines Mastodon-Fediverse. Desto schwerer fällt es, sich an ein Nicht-nur-Mastodon-Fediverse zu gewöhnen. Desto eher will man sogar wirklich ein reines Mastodon-Fediverse haben.
Blöderweise wurde Mastodons aktuelle Kultur aufgebaut von Leuten, die selbst zu der Zeit glaubten, das Fediverse sei nur Mastodon. Sonst wäre Mastodons Kultur nämlich für den Rest des Fediverse offener. Und so ist in Mastodons Kultur quasi eingebrannt, daß alles, was nicht Mastodon ist, ein ungewollter Eindringling ist.Wir waren zuerst da vs. wir waren wirklich zuerst da
Der Großteil der Mastodon-Nutzer glaubt, das Fediverse fing mit Mastodon an. Und so verhalten sie sich auch. Wir waren zuerst da, Mastodon war zuerst da, also ist Mastodon der Standard.
Die Friendica-Nutzer dagegen wissen, daß Friendica schon lange vor Mastodon da war. Viele Friendica-Nutzer sind ja selbst schon seit Zeiten dabei, als es Mastodon noch gar nicht gab. Folglich weigern sie sich, Mastodon als Ursprung des Fediverse anzuerkennen. Die meisten dürften nämlich wissen, daß der Ursprung des Fediverse StatusNet von 2008 war. Damit war Friendica übrigens auch verbunden.500 Zeichen vs. gar kein Limit
Anderes Beispiel: Mastodon hat ein festgelegtes Zeichenlimit von 500. Jeder Mastodon-Neuling gewöhnt sich da erstmal dran. Wenn man dann erstmals über einen Beitrag stolpert, der länger ist, dann ist das zutiefst (ver)störend, vor allem, wenn man die offizielle Mastodon-Smartphone-App benutzt, die lange Beiträge nicht einklappen kann.
Folglich ist es auf Mastodon in die Kultur eingebrannt, daß Beiträge mit über 500 Zeichen schlecht sind. Und es ist eine ungeschriebene Regel auf Mastodon, Beiträge, die über 500 Zeichen lang sind, in Threads zu zerschneiden. Zugegeben, die meisten Mastodon-Nutzer haben eh keine andere Wahl.
Auf Friendica ist das ganz anders. Da gab es nie ein definiertes Zeichenlimit. Da sind die Leute es seit jeher gewohnt, soviel auf einmal zu posten, wie sie wollen und müssen. Folglich gehen einigen die zerschnipselten Beiträge von Mastodon gehörig auf die Nerven, weil das den Lesefluß stört.
Und so stehen auf der einen Seite Mastodon-Nutzer, die Friendica-Nutzer dazu zwingen wollen, Beiträge, die länger als 500 Zeichen sind, zu zerschneiden. Auf der anderen Seite stehen Friendica-Nutzer, die zum einen genau das eben nicht nötig haben und zum anderen Mastodon-Nutzern empfehlen, wenn sie öfters mal etwas Langes zu posten haben, an einen Ort im Fediverse umzuziehen, wo sie mehr als nur 500 Zeichen haben. Aber sie sollen um Gottes Willen aufhören mit dieser Schnipselei.CWs vs. Zusammenfassungen plus NSFW
Noch ein Beispiel: das CW-Feld. Allgemeine Annahme auf Mastodon ist, daß es das so im ganzen Fediverse gibt und es somit auch Teil der Kultur im ganzen Fediverse ist, da vor potentiell verstörenden Inhalten zu warnen. Und das Feld im übrigen auch nur dafür zu nutzen.
Mastodon hat dieses Feld seit 2017.
Friendica hat dieses Feld seit 2010, seit es an den Start ging.
Aber: Auf Friendica war das nie ein CW-Feld. Auf Friendica war es schon immer und ist es heute noch ein Feld für Zusammenfassungen. Warum Zusammenfassungen? Weil es ziemlich viel Sinn ergibt, ein Feld für Zusammenfassungen zu haben, wenn man über 16 Millionen Zeichen auf einmal posten kann.
Und so ist in Friendicas Kultur eingebrannt, daß dieses Feld für Zusammenfassungen genutzt wird. Und nur für Zusammenfassungen.
Auf Mastodon ist genau dieser Sachverhalt derweil total unbekannt, auch weil kaum jemand auf Mastodon überhaupt weiß, daß Friendica existiert, und von denen, die das wissen, die meisten sich nicht vorstellen können, daß Friendica mit Mastodon verbunden ist. Also glaubt man, das Feld sei von Mastodon erfunden worden.
Aber wieso nur für Zusammenfassungen? Gibt's auf Friendica keine Inhaltswarnungen?
Doch. Aber die funktionieren völlig anders. Die werden nicht vom Autor eines Beitrags ausgestellt, sondern beim Leser vollautomatisch per Textfilter erzeugt. Auch das ist bombenfest in Friendicas Kultur eingebrannt, ebenso, daß man dann auch im Beitrag entsprechende Schlüsselwörter einbauen muß, damit das bei entsprechend sensiblen Lesern auch funktioniert.
Übrigens: Das kann auch Mastodon. Aber erst seit Oktober 2022, als Mastodons Kultur und Mastodons ungeschriebene Regeln schon in Stein gemeißelt waren. Und im übrigen wissen 99% von Mastodons Nutzern nicht, daß Mastodon das kann, und mindestens 80% nicht, daß Mastodon überhaupt Filter hat.
Folge:- Mastodon-Nutzer werfen Friendica-Nutzern vor, keine CWs zu setzen und das CW-Feld zu mißbrauchen (weil die Friendica-Nutzer das CW-Feld entweder für Zusammenfassungen oder gar nicht benutzen).
- Friendica-Nutzer werfen Mastodon-Nutzern vor, das Zusammenfassungsfeld für irgendwelchen Blödsinn zu mißbrauchen (weil die Mastodon-Nutzer ihre kryptischen Inhaltswarnungen ins Zusammenfassungsfeld packen).
- Mastodon-Nutzer werfen Friendica-Nutzern vor, unsinnige und/oder zuviele Hashtags zu verwenden (weil die Friendica-Nutzer genau das als Hashtags eintragen, was sie eigentlich ins CW-Feld eintragen sollen).
- Friendica-Nutzer werfen Mastodon-Nutzern vor, keine Schlüsselwörter zum Auslösen von NSFW in ihre Beiträge einzubauen (weil die Mastodon-Nutzer gar nicht wissen, daß sowas irgendwo im Fediverse existiert).
Solange es Mastodon-Nutzer gibt, die das Fediverse für nur Mastodon halten, solange es Mastodon-Nutzer gibt, die Mastodon als alleiniges Maß aller Dinge ansehen, solange Mastodon-Nutzern beim Onboarding nichts vom übrigen Fediverse erzählt wird (der Einfachheit halber, oder weil diejenigen, die sie einladen, es auch nicht besser wissen), solange Mastodon-Nutzer Nicht-Mastodon-Nutzer systematisch diskriminieren und gleichzeitig vehement abstreiten, irgendjemanden zu diskriminieren, solange wird der Frust nicht abklingen.
Jetzt kann man natürlich als reiner Mastodon-Nutzer, basiert und mastodongepillt, ankommen und sagen: "Die Lösung liegt doch auf der Hand! Friendica muß mehr wie Mastodon werden. Nur 500 Zeichen, Zusammenfassungsfeld in CW-Feld umbenennen, dieses blöde NSFW abschaffen, alle Protokolle außer ActivityPub rausschmeißen, und alles wird gut!"
Tja, dann kommen aber die Friendica-Veteranen. Qua "wir waren schon gut fünfeinhalb Jahre vor euch hier" und qua "Friendica ist objektiv die bessere und leistungsfähigere Software und Mastodon eine künstlich funktionsreduzierte Krücke, die sich nur durch Propaganda, sektenmäßige Gehirnwäsche ihrer Nutzer und vorsätzliche Inkompatibilität mit dem übrigen Fediverse halten kann". Und sie sagen: "Mastodon sollte viel eher sein blödes Zeichenlimit abschaffen, das CW-Feld in das umbenennen, was es schon auf Identi.ca war, Unterstützung für in sich geschlossene Konversationen einführen, Gruppen nach etablierten Fediverse-Standards einführen, volles HTML-Rendering zulassen bis hin zu beliebig vielen eingebetteten Bildern mitten im Beitrag und auch dieses bräsige Folgen-und-Gefolgtwerden durch standardmäßig gegenseitige Verbindungen ersetzen. Dann wäre das ein Gewinn für das ganze Fediverse!"
#Long #LongPost #CWLong #CWLongPost #LangerPost #CWLangerPost #FediMeta #FediverseMeta #CWFediMeta #CWFediverseMeta #Zeichenlimit #Zeichenlimits #ZeichenlimitMeta #CWZeichenlimitMeta #CW #CWs #CWMeta #ContentWarning #ContentWarnings #ContentWarningMeta #Fediverse #Mastodon #Friendica #NichtNurMastodon #MastodonKultur #MastodonZentrizität #MastodonNormativität -
@Mina
Ich meine: So kompliziert ist das mit den Bildbeschreibungen auf Friendica ja auch nicht.
Ganz so straight-forward wie auf Mastodon ist es aber auch nicht. Und Friendica hat auch keine so vorbildlich detaillierte Dokumentation wie Hubzilla (wo das noch schwieriger ist).
Dazu kommt, daß Friendica immer noch zu einer gewissen Isolation von Mastodon neigt. Das wiederum kommt auch daher, daß ständig Mastodon-Nutzer Friendica-Nutzer dazu zwingen wollen, Friendicas Kultur über Bord zu werfen und statt dessen Mastodons Kultur anzunehmen. Wohlgemerkt, Friendicas Kultur ist mehr als ein Jahrzehnt älter als Mastodons Kultur und sehr viel besser an Friendicas Features angepaßt als Mastodons Kultur.
Wenn jetzt also ein Mastodon-Nutzer ankommt und von einem Friendica-Nutzer z. B. verlangt...- seine "Tröts" auf maximal 500 Zeichen zu beschränken und längere "Tröts" in Threads zu zerschneiden
- das Abstraktfeld (das auf Friendica schon sieben Jahre länger ein Abstraktfeld ist als auf Mastodon ein CW-Feld) für CWs zu nutzen und nur für CWs und nicht für Zusammenfassungen
- gleichzeitig mit Extra-Hashtags nicht mehr dafür zu sorgen, daß Beiträge automatisch hinter leserseitig individuell generierten CWs versteckt werden (was auf Friendica schon zwölf Jahre länger geht als auf Mastodon und wovon auf Mastodon niemand weiß, daß es überhaupt geht)
- oder gar das Aussehen der Erwähnungen und Hashtags an den Mastodon-"Standard" anzupassen (was gar nicht geht, weil das auf Friendica hartgecodet ist)
Folglich wird der Friendica-Nutzer noch weniger davon mitbekommen, was auf Mastodon abgeht.Weil es aber praktisch kein Zeichenlimit auf Friendica gibt, gibt es natürlich auch die super-simple Variante, die Beschreibung einfach in den Text des Posts zu setzen.
Kann man machen. Dann riskiert man aber, auf den Deckel zu kriegen, weil es im Alt-Text keine adäquate (= garantiert handgeschriebene, 100% akkurate und hinreichend detaillierte) Bildbeschreibung gibt.
Früher war es ja auch noch so, daß Mastodon hinter CWs nur den Post-Text verbarg, nicht aber das Bild. Wenn man ein Bild gepostet hat mit CW, dann konnten Mastodon-Nutzer nicht auf den ersten Blick sehen, daß im Post eine Bildbeschreibung ist. Damit gerechnet haben sie auch nicht, weil sie sich nicht vorstellen konnten, daß jemand eher die 500 Zeichen im "Tröt" für die Bildbeschreibung nimmt als die 1500 im Alt-Text, und auch nicht gesehen haben, daß der Post von Friendica kam und eben nicht von Mastodon. Also gingen sie davon aus: Wenn im Alt-Text keine Bildbeschreibung ist, dann ist da gar keine.
Inzwischen hat Mastodon das für sein Web-Frontend geändert. Ich glaube aber, es dürfte immer noch etliche Smartphone-Apps geben, die Bilder nicht hinter CWs verstecken.
Genau deswegen beschreibe ich meine eigenen Bilder auch immer zweimal: einmal sehr umfangreich im Post selbst und dann noch einmal zusätzlich im Alt-Text. Dabei reize ich im Alt-Text die 1500 Zeichen aus, die Mastodon bietet (weil Mastodon längere Alt-Texte abschneidet), auch wenn ich selbst im Grunde auch für Alt-Texte kein Zeichenlimit habe (ich selbst bin auf Hubzilla und poste meine Bilder auf (streams)). Im Post brauche ich mir über Zeichenlimits keinen Kopf zu machen.
Gut, eigentlich müßte ich die Alt-Texte auf 512 Zeichen beschränken, weil Misskey und die Forkeys längere Alt-Texte gänzlich löschen. Aber zumindest Misskey schneidet lange Posts bei ca. 8000 Zeichen ab, und die Forkeys werden ähnlich funktionieren. Das heißt, *key-Nutzer werden so oder so meine Posts an der Quelle lesen, denn 8000 Zeichen reichen mir nicht für einen Bildpost (außer vielleicht, wenn es ein Meme ist).
CC: @Der böse Hexe Njähähä 🧙♀️🪄⚡️
#Long #LongPost #CWLong #CWLongPost #LangerPost #CWLangerPost #FediMeta #FediverseMeta #CWFediMeta #CWFediverseMeta #Zeichenlimit #Zeichenlimits #ZeichenlimitMeta #CWZeichenlimitMeta #CW #CWs #CWMeta #ContentWarning #ContentWarnings #ContentWarningMeta #AltText #AltTextMeta #CWAltTextMeta #Bildbeschreibung #Bildbeschreibungen #BildbeschreibungenMeta #CWBildbeschreibungenMeta #FediverseKultur #MastodonKultur #Mastodon #Friendica #Hubzilla #Streams #(streams) -
@Mina
Ich meine: So kompliziert ist das mit den Bildbeschreibungen auf Friendica ja auch nicht.
Ganz so straight-forward wie auf Mastodon ist es aber auch nicht. Und Friendica hat auch keine so vorbildlich detaillierte Dokumentation wie Hubzilla (wo das noch schwieriger ist).
Dazu kommt, daß Friendica immer noch zu einer gewissen Isolation von Mastodon neigt. Das wiederum kommt auch daher, daß ständig Mastodon-Nutzer Friendica-Nutzer dazu zwingen wollen, Friendicas Kultur über Bord zu werfen und statt dessen Mastodons Kultur anzunehmen. Wohlgemerkt, Friendicas Kultur ist mehr als ein Jahrzehnt älter als Mastodons Kultur und sehr viel besser an Friendicas Features angepaßt als Mastodons Kultur.
Wenn jetzt also ein Mastodon-Nutzer ankommt und von einem Friendica-Nutzer z. B. verlangt...- seine "Tröts" auf maximal 500 Zeichen zu beschränken und längere "Tröts" in Threads zu zerschneiden
- das Abstraktfeld (das auf Friendica schon sieben Jahre länger ein Abstraktfeld ist als auf Mastodon ein CW-Feld) für CWs zu nutzen und nur für CWs und nicht für Zusammenfassungen
- gleichzeitig mit Extra-Hashtags nicht mehr dafür zu sorgen, daß Beiträge automatisch hinter leserseitig individuell generierten CWs versteckt werden (was auf Friendica schon zwölf Jahre länger geht als auf Mastodon und wovon auf Mastodon niemand weiß, daß es überhaupt geht)
- oder gar das Aussehen der Erwähnungen und Hashtags an den Mastodon-"Standard" anzupassen (was gar nicht geht, weil das auf Friendica hartgecodet ist)
Folglich wird der Friendica-Nutzer noch weniger davon mitbekommen, was auf Mastodon abgeht.Weil es aber praktisch kein Zeichenlimit auf Friendica gibt, gibt es natürlich auch die super-simple Variante, die Beschreibung einfach in den Text des Posts zu setzen.
Kann man machen. Dann riskiert man aber, auf den Deckel zu kriegen, weil es im Alt-Text keine adäquate (= garantiert handgeschriebene, 100% akkurate und hinreichend detaillierte) Bildbeschreibung gibt.
Früher war es ja auch noch so, daß Mastodon hinter CWs nur den Post-Text verbarg, nicht aber das Bild. Wenn man ein Bild gepostet hat mit CW, dann konnten Mastodon-Nutzer nicht auf den ersten Blick sehen, daß im Post eine Bildbeschreibung ist. Damit gerechnet haben sie auch nicht, weil sie sich nicht vorstellen konnten, daß jemand eher die 500 Zeichen im "Tröt" für die Bildbeschreibung nimmt als die 1500 im Alt-Text, und auch nicht gesehen haben, daß der Post von Friendica kam und eben nicht von Mastodon. Also gingen sie davon aus: Wenn im Alt-Text keine Bildbeschreibung ist, dann ist da gar keine.
Inzwischen hat Mastodon das für sein Web-Frontend geändert. Ich glaube aber, es dürfte immer noch etliche Smartphone-Apps geben, die Bilder nicht hinter CWs verstecken.
Genau deswegen beschreibe ich meine eigenen Bilder auch immer zweimal: einmal sehr umfangreich im Post selbst und dann noch einmal zusätzlich im Alt-Text. Dabei reize ich im Alt-Text die 1500 Zeichen aus, die Mastodon bietet (weil Mastodon längere Alt-Texte abschneidet), auch wenn ich selbst im Grunde auch für Alt-Texte kein Zeichenlimit habe (ich selbst bin auf Hubzilla und poste meine Bilder auf (streams)). Im Post brauche ich mir über Zeichenlimits keinen Kopf zu machen.
Gut, eigentlich müßte ich die Alt-Texte auf 512 Zeichen beschränken, weil Misskey und die Forkeys längere Alt-Texte gänzlich löschen. Aber zumindest Misskey schneidet lange Posts bei ca. 8000 Zeichen ab, und die Forkeys werden ähnlich funktionieren. Das heißt, *key-Nutzer werden so oder so meine Posts an der Quelle lesen, denn 8000 Zeichen reichen mir nicht für einen Bildpost (außer vielleicht, wenn es ein Meme ist).
CC: @Der böse Hexe Njähähä 🧙♀️🪄⚡️
#Long #LongPost #CWLong #CWLongPost #LangerPost #CWLangerPost #FediMeta #FediverseMeta #CWFediMeta #CWFediverseMeta #Zeichenlimit #Zeichenlimits #ZeichenlimitMeta #CWZeichenlimitMeta #CW #CWs #CWMeta #ContentWarning #ContentWarnings #ContentWarningMeta #AltText #AltTextMeta #CWAltTextMeta #Bildbeschreibung #Bildbeschreibungen #BildbeschreibungenMeta #CWBildbeschreibungenMeta #FediverseKultur #MastodonKultur #Mastodon #Friendica #Hubzilla #Streams #(streams) -
@Mina
Ich meine: So kompliziert ist das mit den Bildbeschreibungen auf Friendica ja auch nicht.
Ganz so straight-forward wie auf Mastodon ist es aber auch nicht. Und Friendica hat auch keine so vorbildlich detaillierte Dokumentation wie Hubzilla (wo das noch schwieriger ist).
Dazu kommt, daß Friendica immer noch zu einer gewissen Isolation von Mastodon neigt. Das wiederum kommt auch daher, daß ständig Mastodon-Nutzer Friendica-Nutzer dazu zwingen wollen, Friendicas Kultur über Bord zu werfen und statt dessen Mastodons Kultur anzunehmen. Wohlgemerkt, Friendicas Kultur ist mehr als ein Jahrzehnt älter als Mastodons Kultur und sehr viel besser an Friendicas Features angepaßt als Mastodons Kultur.
Wenn jetzt also ein Mastodon-Nutzer ankommt und von einem Friendica-Nutzer z. B. verlangt...- seine "Tröts" auf maximal 500 Zeichen zu beschränken und längere "Tröts" in Threads zu zerschneiden
- das Abstraktfeld (das auf Friendica schon sieben Jahre länger ein Abstraktfeld ist als auf Mastodon ein CW-Feld) für CWs zu nutzen und nur für CWs und nicht für Zusammenfassungen
- gleichzeitig mit Extra-Hashtags nicht mehr dafür zu sorgen, daß Beiträge automatisch hinter leserseitig individuell generierten CWs versteckt werden (was auf Friendica schon zwölf Jahre länger geht als auf Mastodon und wovon auf Mastodon niemand weiß, daß es überhaupt geht)
- oder gar das Aussehen der Erwähnungen und Hashtags an den Mastodon-"Standard" anzupassen (was gar nicht geht, weil das auf Friendica hartgecodet ist)
Folglich wird der Friendica-Nutzer noch weniger davon mitbekommen, was auf Mastodon abgeht.Weil es aber praktisch kein Zeichenlimit auf Friendica gibt, gibt es natürlich auch die super-simple Variante, die Beschreibung einfach in den Text des Posts zu setzen.
Kann man machen. Dann riskiert man aber, auf den Deckel zu kriegen, weil es im Alt-Text keine adäquate (= garantiert handgeschriebene, 100% akkurate und hinreichend detaillierte) Bildbeschreibung gibt.
Früher war es ja auch noch so, daß Mastodon hinter CWs nur den Post-Text verbarg, nicht aber das Bild. Wenn man ein Bild gepostet hat mit CW, dann konnten Mastodon-Nutzer nicht auf den ersten Blick sehen, daß im Post eine Bildbeschreibung ist. Damit gerechnet haben sie auch nicht, weil sie sich nicht vorstellen konnten, daß jemand eher die 500 Zeichen im "Tröt" für die Bildbeschreibung nimmt als die 1500 im Alt-Text, und auch nicht gesehen haben, daß der Post von Friendica kam und eben nicht von Mastodon. Also gingen sie davon aus: Wenn im Alt-Text keine Bildbeschreibung ist, dann ist da gar keine.
Inzwischen hat Mastodon das für sein Web-Frontend geändert. Ich glaube aber, es dürfte immer noch etliche Smartphone-Apps geben, die Bilder nicht hinter CWs verstecken.
Genau deswegen beschreibe ich meine eigenen Bilder auch immer zweimal: einmal sehr umfangreich im Post selbst und dann noch einmal zusätzlich im Alt-Text. Dabei reize ich im Alt-Text die 1500 Zeichen aus, die Mastodon bietet (weil Mastodon längere Alt-Texte abschneidet), auch wenn ich selbst im Grunde auch für Alt-Texte kein Zeichenlimit habe (ich selbst bin auf Hubzilla und poste meine Bilder auf (streams)). Im Post brauche ich mir über Zeichenlimits keinen Kopf zu machen.
Gut, eigentlich müßte ich die Alt-Texte auf 512 Zeichen beschränken, weil Misskey und die Forkeys längere Alt-Texte gänzlich löschen. Aber zumindest Misskey schneidet lange Posts bei ca. 8000 Zeichen ab, und die Forkeys werden ähnlich funktionieren. Das heißt, *key-Nutzer werden so oder so meine Posts an der Quelle lesen, denn 8000 Zeichen reichen mir nicht für einen Bildpost (außer vielleicht, wenn es ein Meme ist).
CC: @Der böse Hexe Njähähä 🧙♀️🪄⚡️
#Long #LongPost #CWLong #CWLongPost #LangerPost #CWLangerPost #FediMeta #FediverseMeta #CWFediMeta #CWFediverseMeta #Zeichenlimit #Zeichenlimits #ZeichenlimitMeta #CWZeichenlimitMeta #CW #CWs #CWMeta #ContentWarning #ContentWarnings #ContentWarningMeta #AltText #AltTextMeta #CWAltTextMeta #Bildbeschreibung #Bildbeschreibungen #BildbeschreibungenMeta #CWBildbeschreibungenMeta #FediverseKultur #MastodonKultur #Mastodon #Friendica #Hubzilla #Streams #(streams) -
Other things I've learned about interacting with Mastodon; CW: long (over 1,400 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: I've learned a few more things.
For one, Mastodon users tend to ignore anything that exceeds 500 characters. At best. In fact, they're likely to mute or block you at first strike.
Besides, you must never try to discuss things like alt-texts, image descriptions, content warnings, hashtags and the like. Not even to find out how to do either of them properly. You must know how to do them properly by Mastodon's definition right away, or you must fully figure it out yourself without ever asking anyone, but you must do so before your own first post.
Even if you aren't on Mastodon yourself, you must know and live and breathe Mastodon's unwritten rules and Mastodon's culture if anything you ever post may end up on Mastodon. But what makes up Mastodon's culture and what Mastodon's unwritten rules are, you must find that out all by yourself. And you must never discuss either. For discussing them equals questioning them equals potentially rejecting them.
I guess my question in my first comment was wrong, too.
#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 -
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 -
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 View article View summary
@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 -
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:
-
@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: