#mastodoncentricity — Public Fediverse posts

@Phantasm

The protocol is described as a social networking protocol in its abstract. That people managed to bolt on forums and marketplaces on top of it is more of a testament to its stupid levels of extensibility.

Where do you think ActivityPub came from?

It wasn't Eugen Rochko who invented it.

It was invented by @Erin Kissane and @Evan Prodromou. The same Evan Prodromou who started the Fediverse as early as 2008 with the microblogging website Identi.ca, the software Laconi.ca which it is based on and the server application StatusNet based on Laconi.ca. And I know from personal, first-hand experience that StatusNet had groups.

Also, the very first server application that implemented ActivityPub was Hubzilla in July, 2017, two months before Mastodon which started out on the same protocol as StatusNet. And Hubzilla's forums very much support ActivityPub, just like Hubzilla has full support for other ActivityPub-based groups.

The reason why Mastodon doesn't have groups isn't because ActivityPub doesn't really support them. It's because Twitter has never had groups.

And to me social media qualifies as anything that isn't a blog that allows comments. Since that is its dictionary definition more or less. AIM was social media, Twitter is social media, Fediverse is social media. They are all medias that allow social interactions.

Still, there's a big difference between how Twitter, Mastodon, Pleroma and Mitra work and how Facebook, Friendica, Hubzilla and its descendants work. And how Reddit, Hacker News, Lemmy and Mbin work.

In stark contrast what many believe, ActivityPub was never meant to be a pure microblogging protocol.

>It would have allowed for discussions with restricted permissions, made absolutely impenetrable even for Mastodon users. It would even have allowed for discussion groups which would have been both fully private and hidden from all directories. Most importantly, it would have empowered its users to moderate their own streams themselves with a whole arsenal of countermeasures, all the way up to the thermonuclear option of turning ActivityPub off entirely.

You can't have any of this when using ActivityPub.

Except for the thermonuclear option, Forte (https://codeberg.org/fortified/forte) does literally all of this with ActivityPub, only ActivityPub and nothing but ActivityPub. Forte does not even support any other protocols. Yet, its permissions system is the exact same as that on (streams) (https://codeberg.org/streams/streams) which it was forked from and very similar to that on Hubzilla which is a common ancestor of both.

Don't mix up ActivityPub and Mastodon.

And if you turn off ActivityPub federation then you've created a website with comments.

No. I still have a Hubzilla hub that's fully federated with the other Hubzilla hubs and with all (streams) servers via the Zot6 protocol. I still have a network referred to as "The Grid".

I have two channels, one on Hubzilla, one on (streams), that are members of a (streams) group that used to have ActivityPub turned off. The group is not on the same server as my (streams) channel.

In fact, if I turn off ActivityPub federation on this channel, I also remain connected to diaspora*, Friendica and Socialhome via the diaspora* protocol.

It's so hilarious how you who obviously has never even only tried Friendica are trying to explain Hubzilla to me who has been continuously daily-driving Hubzilla for about as long as Mastodon has existed. Who is renowned as a core member of the German-speaking Hubzilla community (and Hubzilla is bigger in Germany than anywhere else) and someone who can explain Hubzilla to others.

There is nothing private on this network besides end-to-end-encrypted DMs which are very much in a prototype stage still.

How easy would say is it to find a hidden, private Forte group, join it and lay its conversations open without a Hubzilla, (streams) or Forte channel?

Even stuff like Conversation Containers aren't private despite the federation being done only by one party being the sole authority over the conversation. It is trivial to leak those posts as long as they've been sent to one or more malicious instances. They have the same issue as Mastodon lockposts in that regard. The only meaningful difference between the two is that a Conversation Container can stay in the same audience throughout the whole conversation, ie. only for the followers of OP for example, Mastodon lockposts don't have that capability.

Well, Conversation Containers weren't invented for privacy purposes. The whole FEP was created to cast the way Hubzilla and (streams) handle conversations, as in how they do natively and elegantly what Mastodon is trying hard to kluge together, into a FEP for others to implement.

>Mastodon is not the gold standard and reference implementation of ActivityPub.

ActivityPub is Mastodon no matter how much that fact sucks.

You obviously haven't seen Lemmy from close either.

Inb4 "Lemmy is broken by design because it implements vanilla ActivityPub tailored to the requirements of a Reddit clone rather than being built against Mastodon."

Essentially, what Mastodon does has little to do with ActivityPub. Mastodon is half stretching the ActivityPub spec almost until it breaks and half semi-proprietary stuff that has literally nothing to do with ActivityPub whatsoever. For example, Webfinger is not required as per ActivityPub. But it's a hard requirement in order to be able to federate with Mastodon.

Mastodon is far from being the most vanilla W3C ActivityPub implementation out there. And it's far from being the most feature-complete W3C ActivityPub implementation.

The problem which the Fediverse has is that next to nobody even looks at the W3C ActivityPub spec. Almost everyone only looks at the Mastodon source code instead. Except maybe for those who either have been developing Fediverse software for longer than Eugen Rochko or who develop Fediverse software that doesn't necessarily need full Mastodon compatibility. And then you see all those Mastodon users whine who believe that everything in the Fediverse that isn't Mastodon is bolted onto Mastodon as an add-on.

>It's a highly Mastodon-centric notion that everything in the Fediverse that doesn't strictly "implement Mastodon" is broken.

If you can't federate with 95+% of the network it's broken in the context of Fediverse.

• 20.11% of all active instances excluding (streams) and Forte, behind WordPress and Ghost
• 54.62% of all actors excluding (streams) and Forte
• 68% of all monthly active accounts excluding Misskey, various Misskey forks, GoToSocial, (streams) and Forte
• source of 61.6% of all sent objects exclusing (streams) and Forte

Source: FediIndex.

CC: @Pawlicker

#Long #LongPost #CWLong #CWLongPost #FediMeta #FediverseMeta #CWFediMeta #CWFediverseMeta #Fediverse #ActivityPub #Mastodon #Hubzilla #Streams #(streams) #Forte #MastodonCentricity #MastodonNormativity

@Phantasm

The protocol is described as a social networking protocol in its abstract. That people managed to bolt on forums and marketplaces on top of it is more of a testament to its stupid levels of extensibility.

Where do you think ActivityPub came from?

It wasn't Eugen Rochko who invented it.

It was invented by @Erin Kissane and @Evan Prodromou. The same Evan Prodromou who started the Fediverse as early as 2008 with the microblogging website Identi.ca, the software Laconi.ca which it is based on and the server application StatusNet based on Laconi.ca. And I know from personal, first-hand experience that StatusNet had groups.

Also, the very first server application that implemented ActivityPub was Hubzilla in July, 2017, two months before Mastodon which started out on the same protocol as StatusNet. And Hubzilla's forums very much support ActivityPub, just like Hubzilla has full support for other ActivityPub-based groups.

The reason why Mastodon doesn't have groups isn't because ActivityPub doesn't really support them. It's because Twitter has never had groups.

And to me social media qualifies as anything that isn't a blog that allows comments. Since that is its dictionary definition more or less. AIM was social media, Twitter is social media, Fediverse is social media. They are all medias that allow social interactions.

Still, there's a big difference between how Twitter, Mastodon, Pleroma and Mitra work and how Facebook, Friendica, Hubzilla and its descendants work. And how Reddit, Hacker News, Lemmy and Mbin work.

In stark contrast what many believe, ActivityPub was never meant to be a pure microblogging protocol.

>It would have allowed for discussions with restricted permissions, made absolutely impenetrable even for Mastodon users. It would even have allowed for discussion groups which would have been both fully private and hidden from all directories. Most importantly, it would have empowered its users to moderate their own streams themselves with a whole arsenal of countermeasures, all the way up to the thermonuclear option of turning ActivityPub off entirely.

You can't have any of this when using ActivityPub.

Except for the thermonuclear option, Forte (https://codeberg.org/fortified/forte) does literally all of this with ActivityPub, only ActivityPub and nothing but ActivityPub. Forte does not even support any other protocols. Yet, its permissions system is the exact same as that on (streams) (https://codeberg.org/streams/streams) which it was forked from and very similar to that on Hubzilla which is a common ancestor of both.

Don't mix up ActivityPub and Mastodon.

And if you turn off ActivityPub federation then you've created a website with comments.

No. I still have a Hubzilla hub that's fully federated with the other Hubzilla hubs and with all (streams) servers via the Zot6 protocol. I still have a network referred to as "The Grid".

I have two channels, one on Hubzilla, one on (streams), that are members of a (streams) group that used to have ActivityPub turned off. The group is not on the same server as my (streams) channel.

In fact, if I turn off ActivityPub federation on this channel, I also remain connected to diaspora*, Friendica and Socialhome via the diaspora* protocol.

It's so hilarious how you who obviously has never even only tried Friendica are trying to explain Hubzilla to me who has been continuously daily-driving Hubzilla for about as long as Mastodon has existed. Who is renowned as a core member of the German-speaking Hubzilla community (and Hubzilla is bigger in Germany than anywhere else) and someone who can explain Hubzilla to others.

There is nothing private on this network besides end-to-end-encrypted DMs which are very much in a prototype stage still.

How easy would say is it to find a hidden, private Forte group, join it and lay its conversations open without a Hubzilla, (streams) or Forte channel?

Even stuff like Conversation Containers aren't private despite the federation being done only by one party being the sole authority over the conversation. It is trivial to leak those posts as long as they've been sent to one or more malicious instances. They have the same issue as Mastodon lockposts in that regard. The only meaningful difference between the two is that a Conversation Container can stay in the same audience throughout the whole conversation, ie. only for the followers of OP for example, Mastodon lockposts don't have that capability.

Well, Conversation Containers weren't invented for privacy purposes. The whole FEP was created to cast the way Hubzilla and (streams) handle conversations, as in how they do natively and elegantly what Mastodon is trying hard to kluge together, into a FEP for others to implement.

>Mastodon is not the gold standard and reference implementation of ActivityPub.

ActivityPub is Mastodon no matter how much that fact sucks.

You obviously haven't seen Lemmy from close either.

Inb4 "Lemmy is broken by design because it implements vanilla ActivityPub tailored to the requirements of a Reddit clone rather than being built against Mastodon."

Essentially, what Mastodon does has little to do with ActivityPub. Mastodon is half stretching the ActivityPub spec almost until it breaks and half semi-proprietary stuff that has literally nothing to do with ActivityPub whatsoever. For example, Webfinger is not required as per ActivityPub. But it's a hard requirement in order to be able to federate with Mastodon.

Mastodon is far from being the most vanilla W3C ActivityPub implementation out there. And it's far from being the most feature-complete W3C ActivityPub implementation.

The problem which the Fediverse has is that next to nobody even looks at the W3C ActivityPub spec. Almost everyone only looks at the Mastodon source code instead. Except maybe for those who either have been developing Fediverse software for longer than Eugen Rochko or who develop Fediverse software that doesn't necessarily need full Mastodon compatibility. And then you see all those Mastodon users whine who believe that everything in the Fediverse that isn't Mastodon is bolted onto Mastodon as an add-on.

>It's a highly Mastodon-centric notion that everything in the Fediverse that doesn't strictly "implement Mastodon" is broken.

If you can't federate with 95+% of the network it's broken in the context of Fediverse.

• 20.11% of all active instances excluding (streams) and Forte, behind WordPress and Ghost
• 54.62% of all actors excluding (streams) and Forte
• 68% of all monthly active accounts excluding Misskey, various Misskey forks, GoToSocial, (streams) and Forte
• source of 61.6% of all sent objects exclusing (streams) and Forte

Source: FediIndex.

CC: @Pawlicker

#Long #LongPost #CWLong #CWLongPost #FediMeta #FediverseMeta #CWFediMeta #CWFediverseMeta #Fediverse #ActivityPub #Mastodon #Hubzilla #Streams #(streams) #Forte #MastodonCentricity #MastodonNormativity

@Pawlicker @Phantasm Not the whole Fediverse is social media.

Social media is all about unidirectional followers and churning out content to as many people as possible. Mastodon is social media. It's modelled after Twitter which is social media. So are basically all other microblogging server applications in the Fediverse.

In stark contrast, Hubzilla, as well as its ancestors and descendants, is not social media. It is not modelled after Twitter. It is not nomadic Mastodon with unlimited characters. It doesn't even have unidirectional following. Intentionally in all cases. Also, something that has been around for longer than Mastodon can't be modelled after Mastodon.

Rather, at its core, it's modelled after the Facebook of the 2010s. The Facebook of the 2010s was not social media. It was a social network, dedicated to bidirectional interactions between people. To this day, Facebook doesn't have unidirectional following. Instead, it has "friends" which are always bidirectional.

Likewise, Hubzilla has bidirectional "contacts" as a default. Mind you, these are nothing like your usual Fediverse microblogging mutuals. They aren't one following connection plus one being-followed connection. They're one and exactly one connection which goes both ways.

Also, unlike most other Fediverse software, Hubzilla is extremely flexible in its use-cases. Unlike on most other Fediverse server applications, Hubzilla isn't hard-coded to always be public unless it's a DM which still is quasi-public. It can very much be used for enclosed communities as well, protected by a staggeringly advanced permissions system.

Let me put it this way: BlackMastodon was a disaster. Why? Because Mastodon has nothing much between fully public and mention-driven DMs, and its only ways of self-moderation are muting, blocking and calling the mods.

BlackZilla would have been a success (unless phone apps with native mobile UIs would have been a hard requirement). It would have allowed for discussions with restricted permissions, made absolutely impenetrable even for Mastodon users. It would even have allowed for discussion groups which would have been both fully private and hidden from all directories. Most importantly, it would have empowered its users to moderate their own streams themselves with a whole arsenal of countermeasures, all the way up to the thermonuclear option of turning ActivityPub off entirely.

Just because you use software that can federate with Mastodon, doesn't mean it has to work like Mastodon, and it means even less that it has to always work like Mastodon. Mastodon is not the gold standard and reference implementation of ActivityPub. It's a highly Mastodon-centric notion that everything in the Fediverse that doesn't strictly "implement Mastodon" is broken.

By the way: The way that permissions are worded on (streams) and Forte make much clearer what they're actually for than the way they're worded on Hubzilla. They aren't always there to prevent everyone from doing things. Rather, they're there to keep your stream clean from unwanted content.

Yes, if I disallow comments on a post, anyone on Mastodon can still reply to it, not even knowing that they aren't allowed to do that. But if they do reply, who'll see that reply?

Anyone else in the conversation who's on Friendica or Hubzilla or (streams) or Forte or Lemmy or /kbin or Mbin or PieFed or anything else that knows a thing or two about enclosed threaded conversations won't. That's because they all receive the reply not from the Mastodon poster, but from me. But I don't let that reply from Mastodon in. And if I don't let it in, it won't spread to the users on the aforementioned applications.

That is the intention. And it has been since Mike Macgirvin designed Friendica 16 years ago.

Really: If Hubzilla has enclosed conversations backed by a FEP created on (streams) and an advanced permissions system, and Mastodon doesn't have either, and this causes malfunctions, it's Hubzilla that's broken.

If Mastodon has quote-post controls backed by a FEP created on GoToSocial, and Hubzilla neither has nor supports them, and this causes malfunctions, it's Hubzilla that's broken.

Simply because both Hubzilla devs oh-so-staunchly refuse to "implement Mastodon" and rip all that stuff out that Mastodon doesn't support.

It has stopped being funny long ago.

#Long #LongPost #CWLong #CWLongPost #FediMeta #FediverseMeta #CWFediMeta #CWFediverseMeta #Fediverse #Mastodon #Hubzilla #MastodonCentricity #MastodonNormativity

@Pawlicker @Phantasm Not the whole Fediverse is social media.

Social media is all about unidirectional followers and churning out content to as many people as possible. Mastodon is social media. It's modelled after Twitter which is social media. So are basically all other microblogging server applications in the Fediverse.

In stark contrast, Hubzilla, as well as its ancestors and descendants, is not social media. It is not modelled after Twitter. It is not nomadic Mastodon with unlimited characters. It doesn't even have unidirectional following. Intentionally in all cases. Also, something that has been around for longer than Mastodon can't be modelled after Mastodon.

Rather, at its core, it's modelled after the Facebook of the 2010s. The Facebook of the 2010s was not social media. It was a social network, dedicated to bidirectional interactions between people. To this day, Facebook doesn't have unidirectional following. Instead, it has "friends" which are always bidirectional.

Likewise, Hubzilla has bidirectional "contacts" as a default. Mind you, these are nothing like your usual Fediverse microblogging mutuals. They aren't one following connection plus one being-followed connection. They're one and exactly one connection which goes both ways.

Also, unlike most other Fediverse software, Hubzilla is extremely flexible in its use-cases. Unlike on most other Fediverse server applications, Hubzilla isn't hard-coded to always be public unless it's a DM which still is quasi-public. It can very much be used for enclosed communities as well, protected by a staggeringly advanced permissions system.

Let me put it this way: BlackMastodon was a disaster. Why? Because Mastodon has nothing much between fully public and mention-driven DMs, and its only ways of self-moderation are muting, blocking and calling the mods.

BlackZilla would have been a success (unless phone apps with native mobile UIs would have been a hard requirement). It would have allowed for discussions with restricted permissions, made absolutely impenetrable even for Mastodon users. It would even have allowed for discussion groups which would have been both fully private and hidden from all directories. Most importantly, it would have empowered its users to moderate their own streams themselves with a whole arsenal of countermeasures, all the way up to the thermonuclear option of turning ActivityPub off entirely.

Just because you use software that can federate with Mastodon, doesn't mean it has to work like Mastodon, and it means even less that it has to always work like Mastodon. Mastodon is not the gold standard and reference implementation of ActivityPub. It's a highly Mastodon-centric notion that everything in the Fediverse that doesn't strictly "implement Mastodon" is broken.

By the way: The way that permissions are worded on (streams) and Forte make much clearer what they're actually for than the way they're worded on Hubzilla. They aren't always there to prevent everyone from doing things. Rather, they're there to keep your stream clean from unwanted content.

Yes, if I disallow comments on a post, anyone on Mastodon can still reply to it, not even knowing that they aren't allowed to do that. But if they do reply, who'll see that reply?

Anyone else in the conversation who's on Friendica or Hubzilla or (streams) or Forte or Lemmy or /kbin or Mbin or PieFed or anything else that knows a thing or two about enclosed threaded conversations won't. That's because they all receive the reply not from the Mastodon poster, but from me. But I don't let that reply from Mastodon in. And if I don't let it in, it won't spread to the users on the aforementioned applications.

That is the intention. And it has been since Mike Macgirvin designed Friendica 16 years ago.

Really: If Hubzilla has enclosed conversations backed by a FEP created on (streams) and an advanced permissions system, and Mastodon doesn't have either, and this causes malfunctions, it's Hubzilla that's broken.

If Mastodon has quote-post controls backed by a FEP created on GoToSocial, and Hubzilla neither has nor supports them, and this causes malfunctions, it's Hubzilla that's broken.

Simply because both Hubzilla devs oh-so-staunchly refuse to "implement Mastodon" and rip all that stuff out that Mastodon doesn't support.

It has stopped being funny long ago.

#Long #LongPost #CWLong #CWLongPost #FediMeta #FediverseMeta #CWFediMeta #CWFediverseMeta #Fediverse #Mastodon #Hubzilla #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

@SK Yeah, that's a classic: Mastodon users who don't know much about the Fediverse beyond Mastodon, and who think that if Mastodon doesn't have a feature, the Fediverse doesn't. Some of them have been around since October/November 2022 or even since February/March 2022.

"The Fediverse must introduce $FEATURE."

"Um, the Fediverse already has $FEATURE. Hubzilla has had it since 2015/since 2012 when it still was the Red Matrix/Friendica has had it since 2010. This feature is literally older than Mastodon itself. Just because Mastodon doesn't have it, doesn't mean the Fediverse doesn't have it."

"Actually, everything except Mastodon has $FEATURE."

My experience is that the Fediverse outside of Mastodon, and what features it has to offer, is completely incomprehensible to those who haven't used non-Mastodon Fediverse server software for at least six months as their daily driver. Incomprehensible like a four-dimensional hypercube.

#Long #LongPost #CWLong #CWLongPost #FediMeta #FediverseMeta #CWFediMeta #CWFediverseMeta #Fediverse #Mastodon #NotOnlyMastodon #FediverseIsNotMastodon #MastodonIsNotTheFediverse #Friendica #RedMatrix #Hubzilla #MastodonCentricity