- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.world
Decentralized social network Mastodon says it can’t comply with Mississippi’s age verification law — the same law that saw rival Bluesky pull out of the state — because it doesn’t have the means to do so.
The social non-profit explains that Mastodon doesn’t track its users, which makes it difficult to enforce such legislation. Nor does it want to use IP address-based blocks, as those would unfairly impact people who were traveling, it says.
You must log in or register to comment.
The more interesting question is, who would you arrest? Just ignore the law. It’s unenforceable when it comes to the fediverse.
Those hosting the more popular environments. The posts would live on perhaps but target enough people and it likely becomes too small for them to care anymore, sadly.
We need more federation and P2P in everything.
P2P! I have been screaming this into every forum at reddit since last piece of shit president was president. See? This is why!
What P2P solutions exist that need more attention? I know PeerTube does some neat P2P stuff to keep server load down (if they ever had the traffic…)
veilid is a framework designed for hosting completely anonymous P2P apps. They already have a chat app reference implementation - (think P2P signal) and there are others popping up like vdrop
nobody should comply
Would have been the smart move for business, too. Just don’t comply until everyone else caves and then sue the state for favoring some businesses.
but then they wouldn’t get all the user information
Sadly they were all tripping over each other for a taste of that sweet extortion money.
Does the law in Mississippi apply to the geographic region and airspace, or only residents?
What’s wrong with your own personal 2M band radio network? Or just bring back CB culture. It’s in the name: Citizen’s Band…
There’s going to come a point at which the Feds/States will lean on the ISPs to handle the censorship for them. We’ve had people all over the Nat Sec system staring at the “Great Firewall of China” and asking themselves “Can we get something like this over here?”
Its already happening in Spain. Everyday there is a football match from the spanish league (thats from Friday to Monday, both included) LaLiga orders the ISPs to shutdown everything that uses Cloudflare under the pretext that the shady websites that offers pirated football use their services, killing easily 1/3 of the national traffic for like 4-6h.
Why the ISPs comply?
- The biggest ISP of the country (Movistar) also happens to be the main one that showcase legal football.
How is this legal?
- The judge that authorised this and the president of LaLiga have been friends since forever.
Eventually this will go the European court where they will rule this was illegal and anti-constitutional all along and give a Spain a fine (the the citizens have to pay), and revoke this bullshit, but untill then we are screwed. Nothing will happens to LaLiga, the judge, or Movistar, fucking privileged and corrupted bastards.
Wow, that’s fucked up.
TBH, ISP blocking is easily circumvented with DOH
All my IT and InfoSec friends have called me alarmist for suggesting even the possibility of a GFW of America, but every day that passes, it looks more and more likely to happen, doesn’t it?
Start practicing circumvention techniques now, y’all, while it’s still legal and cheap to do so. Learn amateur radio. Learn Meshtastic. Learn all the different censorship-resistant VPN technology out there. Host your own websites or services for friends, family, or your community. It doesn’t make it impossible, but it does make it hard, and fascism is nothing if not lazy.
I like you
staring at the “Great Firewall of China” and asking themselves “Can we get something like this over here?”
I’ve just been assuming that was the goal all along.
Fifteen years ago, I said on Reddit, “The U.S. is trying to become like China before China can become like the U.S.” Of course, I got buried.
I’ve been saying some combination of China and Russia personally. It’s easier to parallel now after China took over Hong Kong. Those poor kids fought so hard.
People need to understand the fascists were watching those instances too and they learned from them. The last 15 years have been like a road map for how to handle dissent and protests in a way that keeps you in power.
If this really about protecting kids, they could’ve done opt in blocking at the ISP level. Just a few new fields with ISPs and they have products that can take care of this already.
This is really about tracking every little thing you do online.
It’s never really about the kids.
Eventually it will be about restricting what we can access on the web.
It already is. Social media and algorithm manipulation have been an issue for at least a decade. All the stories about algorithm issues in foreign countries makes me wonder if they weren’t beta testing.
We’re pretty cooked.
No just online.
This is why it’s perfect time to get some tech literacy regarding tor, i2p, yggdrasil, and shadowsocks. It’s not perfect solution to use tech to circumvent restrictions that shouldn’t be there in the first place, but sometimes it really comes to that point and it’s really nice to have all systems ready!
I’m making a website to aggregate all of this information. Pro net neutrality, anti censorship laymens guide. Still in the works but its called zoracle.life.
Confirm your URL? Domain is registered but not linking back to a website.
it’s still in the works friend!! Making the whole thing from scratch with some cameron’s world esque aesthetics and a unique landing page. I can definitely let you know when its live :) appreciate the interest.
Arguably though, at some point they’ll just say “if we can’t read your traffic, you can’t use the Internet.”
Which still isn’t a problem, as I’m sure we can come up with a means to encrypt traffic to make it look entirely legitimate. But it’s going to take a while.
At that point people would probably go to a p2p adhoc wireless meshnet to bypass the ISPs entirely.
You mean “at which point, people will just say ‘oh, ok’”. (Assuming they even notice)
“People” will just comply. Tech savvy people like us are the only ones that could circumvent it
Except if the topic is wifi meshnets, no amount of tech savvyness will get you around an absence of other nodes nearby. General apathy is actually a huge problem here.
So what do you propose? People who aren’t able should set up nodes?
Also if wifi mesh is our last hope, oof
I say that as a freifunk participant
I used to think about this via mesh networks as simply routers, but now with nostr, IPFS, atProto and that new BT messaging stuff Jack Dorsey is on. Technically you could utilize your phone as an access point to the mesh network as you move around the city and load all the comms in the background. The latency would be high, but it could work. Also with 5g tech nowadays long range mesh networks are much more feasible albeit probably expensive for a hobbyist.
One… Not so disappointing fact is that means at least the Internet will go back to the pre-social media era.
You can feel it here on Lemmy still. It exists.
Yes it has its perks
Except we’ll have to keep using it because the rest of our families and friends are going to still be on there or pester us about why we aren’t there with them to share photos of your sister-in-law’s baby photos and videos and your aunt Tammy’s vacation photos.
Yup
Sneakernets, my friend. Never underestimate the bandwidth of a pocket full of microsd cards traveling on the subway.
Flash drives of banned foreign films are the one method of accessing foreign media that north Koreans realistically have. It’s extremely hard to prevent people plugging a flash drive into their computer in their home to view some media
Hey Google, buy me bulk 5 gb flash drives. I have a business idea.
Latency is horrific though.
That’s why I find systems designed for high latency by being “offline-first” interesting. Sync large quantities of information when you can, then consume offline. Like Usenet and email used to be. Most things don’t actually need to be “instant”.
All they have to do is send a few crews with log dipoles or yagis. Take a few operators down and charge them with terrorism or something and a critical mass will stop using it.
We have the tech for drones sweeping everything everywhere with sensors. Cameras, radios, microphones, IR…
At some point you’re just going to need to start shooting the fascists
Meshtastic, baby!!
I don’t know literally ANYTHING, so take that into account when answering this, but why can’t a single person access the “Internet” on their own, without an ISP. Can’t they be their own ISP? Or can’t small groups of people - friends, family, co-conspirators - create their own private ISP?
The p2p meshnet that they were referring to basically is a local/small group ISP.
As for why a single person cannot (effectively) become their own ISP? It’s complicated. Really complicated. ISPs have to pay other ISPs just like you and I do, unless they’re a Tier-1 ISP/Network. Otherwise you’re always going to be paying to connect to (and generally paying for bandwidth) another network that has access to a network that then has access to a T1 network. T1s are basically the largest networks that hold (or can directly access) the majority of people on the internet. Top of the food chain, so to speak.
So in theory, yeah, you can become your own ISP - but you’ll still need to pay and be at the mercy of other ISPs. Datacenters are typically their own ISP, but they have to pay others to get online just like we do.
this is what the mesh networks are that people have mentioned elsewhere in this thread.
It is theoretically possible to create a purely peer-to-peer network where each individual connects to people nearby, and then any individual can in theory communicate with any other, by passing data packets to nearby people on the network who then pass it on themselves until it reaches the other person.
You can probably already grasp a few of the issues here - confidentiality is a big one, and reliability is another. But in theory it could work, and the more people who take part in such networks, the more reliable they become.
But can they only access each other in their own “web?” Can they access the World-Wide Web on their private web? Or does that just expose them to all the other stuff anyway?
You can have nodes on a mesh network which act as gateways to the internet, but such nodes are going to have to go through an ISP. There’s no other way to connect to the internet at large unfortunately.
Imagine the internet is a network of roads. The ISPs in some parts of town control the roads, in other parts they only control the stop lights. You can build your own road through private land to avoid the stop lights but it’s expensive. The isps can put traffic cops at the stop lights and monitor and stop you if they want. The only way to get around it is to build a road all the way to the destination.
To some degree you could, but you’d either rely on Tier1 transits to access the entire internet (costly), or you’d use IXPs (keeping your traffic local to other IX participants).
This doesn’t account for how’d you’d actually go into purchasing a port for your residential home, which would probably entail laying your own fiber to a data center nearby.
Like Metastatic on LoRA?
Or maybe we’ll use software defined radios (SDR) to transmit on other unregulated bands (as a hacker, you can often force the software to believe it’s in the wrong region to transmit on bands the FTC didn’t approve, as long as it’s legal somewhere.)
Meshtastic will never replicate anything like the modern internet. It’s slower than 1980s dialup data speeds. Text messaging, maybe…but you ain’t sending a video through it, that’s for sure.
I didn’t know there were unregulated bands. I thought pretty much everything except 2.4Ghz and 5Ghz required licensing and those two were technically unlicensed, but still regulated.
What’s in a name? Legally speaking, your brain and nervous system would be classified as an ‘unintentional radiator’ (MRIs work because of this fact) and as such would fall under regulated devices if we weren’t legal persons.
I used ‘unregulated’ (errantly if you insist) to mean both unlicensed and also use cases where FCC isn’t actively enforcing the regulations on the books, cause technically virtually everything is ‘regulated’.
Ok, that makes sense. Thanks!
That’s probably a better idea. I haven’t actually looked into how that works.
If you mean an HTTPS ban, it’s technically possible, but even mainland China and Russia haven’t gone that far. One major reason is that it would completely undermine basic internet security. It would instantly make man-in-the-middle attacks trivial, letting anyone sniff purchases, transactions, and more. Buying anything online - or using a credit card at all - would suddenly become extremely risky.
Hi I have no idea what any of that means. Please let me join this class.
I’ve tried a few times to check out i2p, it seems to take hours of leaving it running to even get to the point where you can very slowly and inconsistently load even the official pages though.
In my experience, if you have anything but “Network: OK” status (for example, “Network: Firewalled”), it’s not working properly. If you’re behind a VPN, you need to port-forward and properly configure a port in I2P config/settings. Another sign that it’s misconfigured is 0 participating tunnels. This is how properly configured I2P network statistics looks like with high internet bandwidth:
spoiler
Thanks. Somehow the network actually seems to be working pretty well for me now, not sure why it wasn’t before.
sometimes routers go offline before their routing commitments expire (12 minutes). maybe all your HTTP proxy tunnels got disconnected. Increasing the backup tunnel count could help
The situation does seem quite desperate. I’d like to heed your call. Please advise on most critical systems I should have ready right now today please. I know have a lot of work to do and must stay efficient
-
If the internet were fully controlled, you’d need mesh networks - DIY, decentralized networks using radios, local connections, or other alternative infrastructures. I don’t know all the details, but Yggdrasil is a promising modern project that functions as an alternative “internet” for mesh networks, while also working over the regular internet.
-
Within the normal internet, the most resilient solution against heavy censorship is probably Shadowsocks. It’s widely used in mainland China because it can bypass full-scale DPI (deep packet inspection) by making traffic look like normal HTTPS. There are ways for authorities to detect it, and there are counter-methods, but it remains one of the most reliable tools for evading state-level traffic filtering.
-
Next in line are Tor and I2P. Both are very resilient, and blocking them completely is difficult. It’s a continuous cat-and-mouse game: governments block some bridges or entry nodes, but new ones appear, allowing users to reconnect.
-
Finally, regular VPNs are useful but generally less resilient. They’re the first target for legal restrictions and DPI filtering because their traffic patterns are easier to detect.
Overall, for deep censorship resistance, it’s a hierarchy: mesh networks > Shadowsocks > Tor/I2P > standard VPNs. You can ask chatbots about any of these and usually get accurate, practical advice because the technical principles are public knowledge.
Couldn’t the US hypothetically put a clause in some ‘online safety’ law conveniently deanonymizing Tor given they own most of the exit nodes?
Owning a lot of Tor exit nodes doesn’t automatically deanonymize users. Exit nodes only see the traffic as it leaves Tor toward the clearnet, not the original sender. To actually identify someone, you’d need to match their traffic entering the network with the traffic exiting - a correlation attack - which requires visibility on both ends. The US doesn’t “own most exits” either; the network is run by many independent operators, and the Tor community actively monitors for malicious relays. Even if a law forced US exit operators to log everything, that alone wouldn’t deanonymize anyone unless combined with large-scale surveillance of entry traffic, which is extremely resource-intensive and not guaranteed to work. In practice, governments can make running exits legally risky, but they can’t just legislate Tor anonymity away.
Governments also need regular users on Tor for it to function properly, otherwise it becomes easier to track down who is targeting you, most likely another government if they are the only ones with “legal” access.
-
I have absolutely no idea what any of that is after tor. I have heard of i2p but I forget
- Tor is optimized for accessing the regular internet anonymously. It uses onion routing with a small number of long-lived relays, and you exit back to the clearnet through an exit node. Hidden services (now called onion services) exist, but they’re secondary to Tor’s main use case.
- I2P is designed primarily for internal services (called eepsites, torrents, chat, etc.) inside the I2P network itself. It doesn’t rely on exits the way Tor does. It uses garlic routing (a variant of onion routing with bundled messages), and every participant is both a client and a router, making it more peer-to-peer.
Could you be responsible for what someone else does while your using the network then?
Only if you’re deliberately running an exit node (doing so requires special setup).
Sorry, I meant in i2p
Pretty much impossible within I2P
Me either, so I’m searching up what I can and bookmarking it to read later. There’s always more to learn!
Country level internet and passport control before you visit another country domain is inevitable. That’s just like people want it or at least sociopaths.
I agree with mastodon, even though eventually Texas will enact similar legislation forcing me to use a vpn to read it
Woudn’t it be smarter to just leave the hellhole that is Texas? Either to the north or to the south, leaving is a win.
It sometimes isn’t possible, e.g. work or family
Your answer seems so out of touch with reality. It feels equivalent to suggesting a depressed person to simply don’t be sad.
Moving out to a different state is not easy, either because of family, job, money, studies, life or any other situation.
I don’t think that comparison is as unequivocal as you seem to think. Sure, I bet it’s more likely than not that the average person has any of those attachments, but some people don’t. Maybe their job is a dead end, their family is abusive or toxic, their money is a sunk cost, their studies are related to a futile program, and they just need someone to put a bug in their head.
I was abused, manipulated, homeless, with 30k stuck in a scam and not a penny to my name, trying to get into triangle tech. I had every reason to stay. But my closest friend told me to run the fuck away and never look back - I had never considered it. Best advice I ever got and it saved my life. And triangle tech was just another scam.
You never know ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Sometimes there’s family or other things you just can’t take with you. Support structures you might not have somewhere else. Friends and neighbors. Mutual aid.
There can be circumstances that override that. But honestly, the more that flee. The easier it is to get what the fascists want. And at best you’re only helping yourself short term. Because no matter where you go. They will come for you if they can.
For real. I want me and my family to leave the United States. Bringing the entire family to a whole new life abroad is a very tall order.
And even there. There’s no guarantee. Going to Europe where fascists in Russia, Hungary, etc loom? Maybe you’ll be safe a little longer somewhere on the Asian continent with the currently slower rolling fascist forces there. But it’s only temporary. You can’t ultimately escape.
The question is. Where well the breaking point be for most people. What event will cause the public to drag these fuckers from their homes and hold them responsible. Because that’s what it’s going to take. For them to remember that they rely on us. Not only for their wealth. But continued existence. Only when that fear has been driven into them, will things even start to get better.
And it might surprise us. It may just be a red state that does it. One of these Republican sycophants getting dragged from a town hall. Assaulted by a whole community for their rolls in making things worse for everyone. Police are going to have a hard time locking up a whole town. And these elected ghouls that love to ignore their constituents will reel in terror. To be clear, violence isn’t the answer. Fear is. The fear of knowing we far outnumber them. That they could be subject to violent accountability at any moment. Dragged from their safe beds even.
Fear backed by the threat of violence.
Look, I hate violence. But anyone who says “violence isn’t the answer” clearly hasn’t read a history book. It’s nearly always how things are changed (for better or worse).
Violence is the answer for authoritarians. But it never lasts. Because it’s just a tool. The answer is respect, justice, and consent.
Without them you end up in inane cycles of violence like we have now.
People fleeing fascism are just hoping other people will be forced to fight it and win before it gets to them. No matter what happens, eventually some people will have to stand and fight it. There is nothing wrong with deciding that the time to stand and fight it has come. It is scary, yes. It has been a long time since we have had to fight fascism. We might feel like we have forgotten how. But we will learn quickly. The same technology that enables them also enables us in ways just as profound, maybe more profound. Vive la resistance!
Fair enough. In that case I wish you a very successful revolt, that you or those aligned with it hunt down and eliminate the fascists so they can’t come for you never, nowhere.
If they’re coming no matter where Id recommend anyplace that lets you keep a firearm and to stay away from anywhere that doesn’t. Unless anyone’s come up with a better way to stop fascists in the past 80 years, there’s really only one solution. If you don’t want to be part of the solution then you may as well stay right where you are and hope someone else does it for you.
Firearms are a double edged sword. Maybe they help, maybe they hurt. But when society turns against you, and no place is safe for you. All the guns in the world even in the face of an unarmed populace won’t save you.
Rather than encourage people to leave, we should encourage more enlightened people to move there, and change the political climate. A lot of states are closer to flipping than people think, and Texas is one of them.
So far their efforts in various forms of voter suppression have prevented that, and at the same time more people equals more congressional seats.
deleted by creator
I was fruitful and multiplied, its hard to organize a large migration of people, some of whom want to stay.
I will travel, but am rather tied to this area, even if I do not see it changing for the better in my lifetime
Are you really so naive that you believe that a VPN subscription is more difficult or a higher bar than actually getting up and moving?
Potentially meaning you need to find new jobs, new friends, new support structures…etc
Idk about the person you are replying to but I have spent 15 years trying to get out of the state that I am in. It’s really hard to move out of low cost of living areas to higher ones without a job and a lot of planning.
It’s not always easy to just pick up and leave somewhere. Especially somewhere as big as Texas.
Sure would be nice to be privileged enough to be able to relocate myself and my family.
Last time i checked “states rights” didn’t mean the right to impose your laws on people or businesses running out of other states.
If anyone from Mississippi wants to use our services I’m totally ready to ignore any and all laws that don’t acknowledge to sovereignty of the net.
Last I checked, “rights” now means “my right to control you”
That’s always what it meant to Republicans.
Also states don’t have one company to go after. It is nearly impossible to track down and file court orders for if your lucky non-profits in other countries.
Like I don’t think there are many people that host Mastodon instances that will listen to a court order out of the goodness of there heart.
“Mississippi has a backwards-ass age verification requirement. We’re not allowed to let users in from Mississippi. Verify you’re not in Mississippi”
<insert number of Mastodon instances> * 10,000
Some lawyer on Capitol Hill: “Hmm…”
Not if, when.
Who knows, the same demand may be given of certain other federated social media sites in a few months.
States should just create a firewall, and not shift burden to supply chains.
Well they should not do that either, but if they’re going to, they should shoulder the burden.
So in this whole embarrassing dick measuring contest Eugen was wrong and Mike Masnick was right, then. Turns out “real decentralization” or not, Masto/Fedi’s structure doesn’t do anything to bypass this nonsense.
This is not new. People constanty claim AP and Fedi have benefits or features just for being decentralized that they absolutely do not have, but I have to admit I’m kinda shocked that Eugen will do that exact thing without any more self-awareness than the average Masto user. He should know better.
Well even if mastodon.social complies, there are many many other instances to choose from, from all different countries
and even other similar platforms like Sharkey or Mbin that work with Mastodon
It doesn’t matter, though. They all have the same choice to make: comply, shut down in that territory… or be fined an insane amount.
Eugen argued… well, pretty much what you are arguing now. The question Bluesky guy posed to him is what Mastodon.social would do and how would the presence of smaller instances prevent the issue, especially for instances without the resources to comply at all in the first place.
Eugen did not respond to that, but Mastodon.social just did, and the answer is… Mastodon.social will do the same thing as Bluesky and so will every other instance.
Because of course it’s pretty obvious that having a decentralized platform doesn’t help with stupid regulation, because stupid regulation applies to every instance. There’s no reason decentralization would bypass a blanket requirement unless the legal requirement has carved an exception for smaller platforms (and even then there’s a question of what counts as a platform in that scenario).
And the thing is… I’m okay with you not having though that through, but Eugen certainly must have. Right? I mean, they had a pretty well thought out answer for Techcrunch in 24 hours, they must have given it some thought. It’s an unforced communication error.
And who are they going to address that fine to? Tell them to shove it up their fucking arse as their laws mean nothing to you if you don’t live there.
Yeah, well, remind me not to do business with you under any circumstances.
Self hosting is cool and all, but if you think decentralized networks and services are a get out of jail free to bypass regulations applying to their centralized counterparts you shouldn’t be hosting decentralized networks and services.
For one thing if you have no understanding of legal compliance I don’t want you to store any of my data at all.
I don’t need to comply with American laws as I am not American. Their law literally does not apply to me
If you run a social media platform that hosts American users they actually might.
Same as the bar for whether GDPR applies to you isn’t whether your server is physically in the EU, it’s whether you’re processing data from EU users. Or, in fact, how you’re supposed to get explicit permission from EU users to host their data anywhere outside the EU in the first place.
Now, I’m not a lawyer in Mississippi, so I’m not gonna give you legal advice, but I would definitely look into it if I’m setting up a public instance. The same way I’d be looking into what compliance things I need to do to host people’s data, both due to GDPR and due to other privacy laws around the world. It’s one thing to set up for friends and family, but if you’re hosting data from outsiders you probably need to understand what you’re doing.
I’ve also not looked into what happens if you are sharing data with a noncompliant server in a restricted territory (so someone is self hosting in Mississippi and then federating with your server elsewhere). I don’t think the legislators who wrote this dumb rule know, either. They clearly haven’t thought that far ahead. Common sense dictates that the outside server would be fine and it’d be the local server’s problem to be compliant. I presume that’s what Bluesky is counting on (i.e. that someone will set up a local instance and act as an ingest bridge for them without it having to be them). Then again, you have British legislators now claiming that all VPNs need to have age controls, so I am not taking common sense for granted when it comes to these things.
How exactly do they plan on enforcing a fine when you have no business in their country? It works on companies that have an actual presence there. But if you just don’t care about that country you could completely ignore it.
It doesn’t matter, though. They all have the same choice to make: comply, shut down in that territory… or be fined an insane amount.
Those are not the only choices… not everyone can/will be fined (example: Pirate Bay)
Why are we focusing on mastodon.social? I’m not even a fan of mastodon.social. I’m not really interested in their original discussion either. Honestly I kinda hope mastodon.social does comply or lock users out so that users spread out more to other instances instead. But they aren’t even close to the majority of the Fediverse anyways.
There are plenty of instances hosted in different countries that won’t care about this law, or you can self host.
You do know that Eugen developed the Mastodon software, right? He’s not advocating for mastodon.social, he’s advocating for Mastodon.
I’m just talking about the Fediverse. Sure ATProto can theoretically avoid this too but they don’t have as many choices for instances, if any at all that are outside the US and federated with Bluesky? And it seems like self hosting is much harder.
We are focusing on mastodon.social because you jumped on a thread about mastodon.social confirming they won’t be complying with Mississippi’s age verification law, which in turn is a follow up to coverage of Bluesky doing the same thing. And also because Eugen Rochko jumped into that announcement to claim that Bluesky stepping away from that territory was an example of how Fedi’s wider decentralization was an advantage, even though it turned out to no be an advantage at all.
Why would we be talking about anything else? That’s literally the topic. You may be looking for a different thread. If anything, the uncontrolled impulse to talk about the ways in which AP is more decentralized than AT whether that’s relevant to the conversation or not is the exact communication mistake Eugen made. Which makes doing that again even weirder.
To be clear, it doesn’t matter where your instance is hosted. Mastodon.social is not hosted in Mississippi, either, it’s hosted in Berlin. You’re still taking on a TON of potential liability if you don’t comply with their age verification or block that territory from access if the law stays in the books, just like you’re risking a ton of liability if you breach GDPR even if your site isn’t in the EU.
The title says Mastodon, not mastodon.social, and it appears that Eugen was talking about the Fediverse or Mastodon, not mastodon.social specifically (hence the word decentralization, the discussion was not centralized on mastodon.social).
I think people are mixing up the discussion between Mastodon vs mastodon.social too much. Eugen and his non-profit are the developers of Mastodon, so it makes sense for them to be talking it up.
“One of the reasons Mastodon was founded was to allow different jurisdictions to have social media that is independent of the U.S.,” per the statement shared with TechCrunch. “People are free to choose to have their account on a Mastodon server whose policies meet their needs.”
That quote from the article does NOT say mastodon.social
To be clear, it doesn’t matter where your instance is hosted. Mastodon.social is not hosted in Mississippi, either, it’s hosted in Berlin.
There are other countries… watch and see how many instances just ignore the law, there will be many in the Fediverse.
I mean Pirate Bay is still running lol, so yeah I think decentralization works
No, the article is about Mastodon.social’s nonprofit following up with an official statement after not responding when approached about the original report.
Eugen himself was just shitting on Bluesky, his entire comment was that Bluesky leaving showed “why true decentralization is important”. Ironically, that whole pissing match ended up hinging about how much Eugen was focusing on Bluesky rather than their protocol, too. Turns out to be a popular deflection and it turns out to not change anything practical.
You are retroactively trying to reinterpret the subject matter here to save face and I’m too tired right this minute to entertain it. We don’t have to have a conversation, man, no hard feelings, but if you insist on having one here I’d appreciate if it wasn’t about something else entirely.
No, the article is about Mastodon.social’s nonprofit
Are you talking about Mastodon gGmbH? https://joinmastodon.org/de/about
Mastodon gGmbH is a non-profit from Germany that develops the Mastodon software. Mastodon started in 2016 as an open-source project by Eugen Rochko
Mastodon gGmbH is a German non-profit developing a decentralized social network
Interesting that you think Eugen is the bad guy here.
“The bad guy” is not a thing I’ve thought about anybody since I was 12 years old.
I think Eugen jumped onto a common talking point among Fedi people when they try to highlight the difference between Masto and Bluesky and he didn’t think it through.
Like I said, I’m surprised he messed that up. He certainly should know the impression he was giving wasn’t accurate.
