I dunno, *can* we build #European alternatives to #Facebook and co?

[acb@mastodon.social]

@hpod16 @briankrebs The ActivityPub fediverse will not be an alternative to Facebook until it has nuanced privacy controls. At the moment, unless you lock down your followers, effectively going dark to people not preapproved, your posts are effectively public. Which works fine when it’s a small cozy network of kind, thoughtful people, but as soon as the general public start using it, posting anything personal will start to have negative consequences.

[the_rebel@procial.tchncs.de]

@acb@mastodon.social that only if you rely on Mastodon as an access, there are other and better services.
Most of them do not want to know.

Misskey, Sharkey, Hubzilla, Friendica, etc. are the ways

@hpod16@eupolicy.social @briankrebs@infosec.exchange

[the_rebel@procial.tchncs.de]

@wesdym@mastodon.social This Facebook ‘alternative’ helped build the Fediverse and has been part of it from the very beginning. It’s called Friendica.
It’s just that the Mastodon fanboys don’t want to promote it, just like they don’t promote the many other services such as Loops, Pixelfed, Vernisage, etc.
After all, it’s competition for Mastodon, which operates as a company within the Fediverse and does corporate things.


@hpod16@eupolicy.social

[the_rebel@procial.tchncs.de]

@hpod16@eupolicy.social @HaraldKi@nrw.social
Recommend the whole Fediverse, not just the service with the tightest restrictions.

https://fediversum.info/ gives a brief overview of what’s available here.

Among the features that might be useful: closed groups (real groups, not the pseudo ones on Mastodon), user management, differentiated permissions, etc.
All of these have been around in the Fediverse for ages, just not on Mastodon

[smallcircles@social.coop]

@hpod16 yes, I sure did. For a moment some time ago there was talk that the open source strategy would be less pronounced. But this direct reference to decentralized social media, and building out on mastodon is beyond expectations again. Nice!

PS. I maintain the 3 fediverse-related delightful lists that give a good overview of how many ActivityPub based open source projects already exist. See: https://delightful.coding.social

[tusk@troet.cafe]

@hpod16
Each of the commercial platforms has 2 sides, behaving like a semi-transparent mirror. There is the side we can see and where we communicate. Technically speaking, this is trivial.
The other side, which can not be seen by us, is the side where the money circulates, where companies and political forces pay for what is deliberately shown to us.
We must not implement the other side.

[ananas@scicomm.xyz]

@hpod16 I think the better question is *should* we?

I don't really see Europe trying to build its own copies of exploitative monopolies as a good thing.

We might want something that fulfills the same purpose for communities, but I'd prefer to skip the dark patterns inherent in those platforms.

[pa27@mastodon.social]

@informapirata @hpod16 Most people I know are over 40... And none use it! YMMV!

[calcius@hol.ogra.ph]

@hpod16@eupolicy.social
Directed at the top poster in the screenshot: Dear rando-bro-on-the-internet - you are pointing at your elbow saying it's your arse. The question is not "can we" but "why should we want to?"

[luatic@mastodon.social]

@hpod16 the tech is already there and has been for a while, achieving widespread adoption is the difficulty

[dummzeuch@mastodon.social]

@hpod16 why would anybody want a European Facebook?

[jfml@mastodon.art]

@hpod16 Ooof, so many AI slop projects on that list

[dagger@chaos.social]

@hpod16 Done

[slash909uk@mastodon.me.uk]

@tusk @hpod16 Exactly this!

Please please please choose to implement services that promote social good, not fund billionaires and their fascist motives!

Surely we do NOT want clones of today's toxic, ad funded addictive platforms?

I suggest that means separating commercial concerns like 'reach' from the social space entirely. Focus on safety and interpersonal communications features.

Advertising / political PR should live in other mass media spaces. Not here!

[maswan@mastodon.acc.sunet.se]

@hpod16

[juengling@mastodontech.de]

@hpod16 #Mastodon is quite a good start, but it's not "the Fediverse"! If you look for something like #Facebook please see #Friendica.

[timothyroes@mastodon.social]

@hpod16 @smallcircles "The Union's social media presence shall be limited exclusively to platforms following a purple color scheme"? What. Did. You. Do?!

[hpod16@eupolicy.social]

@TimothyRoes @smallcircles
Hahahaha that's my ultimate plan!

The final goal: turn the EU flag from blue to purple!

[tusk@troet.cafe]

@Slash909uk @hpod16
I'm afraid, nobody in the EU is interested in cheap and simple communication services able to fulfill the needs of millions from a home server. There must be a fortune to gain for someone.
Open source and free media are way too socialistic.

[smallcircles@social.coop]

@TimothyRoes @hpod16

I assume you refer to how in communication references to "mastodon" are made?

There's indeed something problematic in that, about which I've been posting a lot and also blogged about: the app-centric nature of the current fediverse, and the re-centralization forces this sets in motion.

See e.g. https://coding.social/blog/grassroots-evolution/#challenges-of-standardization

Mastodon is a brand. A platform and product that targets the fediverse to offer Microblogging services. The way it is used puts it on a pedestal, makes it more prominent than other microblogging apps like #GoToSocial, #Pleroma, and many other alternatives. But it is the social network as a whole that counts, not individual service provider players.

The word #Mastodon is overused in too broad meaning, similar to how people say "I'll google it" when they want to do an internet search. It sells alternatives short, like DuckDuckGo or Kagi. Some people don't even know about fediverse and say "Join mastodon" when they mean "Join the decentralized web".