I wish government organisations would host their own Mastodon servers. Get off Twitter.
Germany actually does that! Quite a few government bodies are already active at https://social.bund.de/. Maybe there‘s hope that other countries will follow.
Trump actually does host his own Mastodon server. It’s called “Truth”. Unfortunately it doesn’t federate 🤣
But yeah, pretty rough to see Obama and Biden still posting to Xitter.
Fortunately it doesn’t federate
Ftfy.
Federation is a 2 way street! No federation means his users all get to live out their days in a big circlejerk.
it’s not like being exposed to other people’s content would change them in any way
Why not? All the Fox and Facebook misinformation radicalized them once. Why couldn’t they change again?
Because they will create their own circlejerk in the fediverse too and people will leave them alone to do it. Instances would likely defederate from a truth social instance if it were federated. They are also in the habit of banning anyone who speaks against their side so it wouldn’t do much good to try.
Fools want the lies to be true. I do think its important to still expose people to facts and such though, but the fact the misinformation central quaritined themselves has made my expericence of the fediverse better
I had no idea truth social was powered by mastodon. But it makes sense that maga is too dumb to build their own platform lol.
They had to migrate to something else because it violated the AGPL
In some countries, corporations and government are basically the same entity. Free countries distinguish between them in a meaningful sense.
Even then, would rather my government contract out Mastodon hosting to a company based here in the UK than to use the American Hosted and moderated Elon tool.
Absolutely. In fact I wrote exactly that last year.
Honestly, imo they wouldn’t even need to get off Twitter and other platforms completely. Just make their own mastodon instance (or something similar that they control themselves) the primary source of truth and place of interaction. They could still link and reference it on other platforms to increase visibility, but make sure that all primary information is in a freely accessible place and not beholden to unreliable entities.
I think that sounds like a really good idea, if you want to get corporate- and government hosted instances on board. What keeps most of them away from free software is that they can’t write a contract with anyone with clear boundaries and guarantees. If Mastodon offers these types of contracts, it would help the adoption rate.
Mastodon isn’t different than any other software, anybody with a half-way experienced IT department could spin up an instance. This sounds like it’s more for small organizations and individuals.
Any company with experienced IT staff could do 80% of SaaS themselves, but they don’t because it’s a huge headache to maintain and issues can easily balloon costs. The bean counters much prefer fixed cost contracts most of the time
I hope we don’t kill this like how we kill Mozilla when it makes a plan to make money.
Firefox is doing amazing right now. My uBlock origin on desktop and mobile Android is still working months after it stopped working in Chrome.
Mastodon has already been exploring this solution ahead of today’s launch by partnering with clients like the European Commission, the state of Schleswig-Holstein in Germany, the city of Blois in France, and AltStore, a software company making an alternative app store.
Great idea!
I would love to see hosts start offering subscription based instances and do things like paying for regular auditing of their infrastructure to give us some assurance that our data is actually secure.
I’d legitimately pay for that.
I honestly would’ve preferred a referral program where you could get a pre-configured vps at your chosen vps provider (where the end user can choose from vps providers such as Hetzner, Glesys and so on), and that the referrer (mastodon, friendica, piefed, lemmy or mbin) gets a small cut out of every monthly payment.
Though I’m not sure how to make that an intriguing deal for the vps providers.Centralizing the decentralized web at one provider sounds counter productive.
Completely agree that this “feels like” a centralisation vector. That’s not the intent of it, and if you read the blog post we make it clear that we want many Mastodon servers, everywhere, rather than one organisation hosting them all. This is to do two things - 1) get us a more sustainable financial foundation that is less dependent on grant cycles and 2) enable the larger institutions (EU Commission being an existing example) to get set up on the Fediverse.
Even if they were to use a single cloud for the managed instances, this is not at all like the centralization of platform ownership. Here’s the critical difference.
If something happens to Twitter, say a methhead buys it and turns it into a propaganda machine, its users can only stop using it and/or move elsewhere. For this to have a significant effect, the a large part of the network of people has to move. Every individual has to do non-trivial amount of labour to do so. That’s hard.
If something happens to the cloud provider hosting some sizeable Mastodon server, the owner of the server can migrate (copy) the instance to another cloud provider, or their own hardware, switch the DNS records and shutdown the old one. Their users would only notice a brief interruptin. There’s no significant labour needed by the users, apart from perhaps logging in again. Only a much smaller amount of labour by the instance owner, compared to the labour needed for mass user migration performed by individual users.
And that’s the major difference that fundamentally changes the dynamics.
All they have to do is not censor or take down domains. Looking at you GoDaddy
I hope they don’t go open core.
Can confirm there are no plans for this to happen or be attempted. We’re getting the new European non-profit worked out (more news soon), no changes to the licensing.
I remember when I wanted Mozilla to do that, since they had the organizational might, the money, and it fit perfectly with their mission when they created mozilla.social. On the one hand, it seems slightly less ideal to have the same organization that develops mastodon also providing hosting for it. On the other hand, they probably have a better chance of doing it well.
On the one hand, it seems slightly less ideal to have the same organization that develops mastodon also providing hosting for it. On the other hand, they probably have a better chance of doing it well.
Yeah, I could see it going two ways. On one hand, they could devote too much time to their for-profit arm and neglect the FOSS branch, or worse, make the .com a favored child over the .org, like WordPress does. But on the other hand, they could be like Canonical which, while they’ve made some questionable decisions with Ubuntu over the years, has pretty staunchly put open-sourced all of their improvements and opened up their improvements to everyone downstream.
And I too miss moz.soc.
Approved.
The article just says “Mastodon” and links to the joinmastodon.org, but I assume they mean Mastodon gGmbH owned by @Gargron@mastodon.social . Lame stream media tries, but they really don’t understand teh poly-centric nature of the 'verse.
