4 ms·

It's not a Federation otherwise you wouldn't be able to disconnect from other instances. It is in reality a Confediverse. Edit: All Elon has to do is send out

It's not a Federation otherwise you wouldn't be able to disconnect from other instances. It is in reality a Confediverse. Edit: All Elon has to do is send out a Tweet with something to the effect of "The Left's alternative to Twitter is Mastodon a Confederacy. Now that's what I call ironic." and watch them lose their minds.

tfsh 4y ago
A cursory search on Google yields four results pertaining to the "confediverse". Being such a niche I wonder whether it's wise to label technology with such contrieved descriptions. I think it would be useful if you could explain the anatomy of such a term? My reading [1] on the matter indicates that it can't be defined as a fediverse because the content is not owned by individual posters, indeed if I were to post something on a mastodon instance, I do not retain sole ownership of the data - a moderator could delete it, and thus "censor" my opinions. But I question, is this a true critisism? And does federation require each client connected to a distributed node to in it's own right retain absolute sovereignty over the content posted on that federated instance? 1: https://evbogue.com/howtosavetwitter https://evbogue.com/howtosavetwitter
- chatterhead 4y ago
  Federation means you go from many to one. Confederation means you act as one but remain many. Instances can block other instances. That's not a Federation. Instances can have other rules and allow other content. That's not a Federation. Mastodon is a confederacy by definition.
  - guipsp 4y ago
    What a useless distinction - no server is going to allow all content
    - chatterhead 4y ago
      A very important distinction. The prevailing system people subscribe to should be known and properly labelled. Otherwise it's just a bait and switch.
  - BlueTemplar 4y ago
    I guess your definition of Confederation/confederacy applies to the World Wide Web too then ?
  - arglebargle123 4y ago
    I'm too tired to make a Socialist Union joke about the fediverse right now but I'm absolutely convinced there's a good one to be made
crotho 4y ago
[dead]
oneeyedpigeon 4y ago
> The Left's alternative to Twitter is Mastodon a Confederacy. Why would that be ironic? Apart from the most well-known historical example—I assume that's your reference—there's nothing about a confederation that's inherently 'anti-left', as far as I can tell. The European Union resembles a confederation.
- chatterhead 4y ago
  - oneeyedpigeon 4y ago
    Hand-on-heart, I haven't downvoted any of your comments. Didn't my own comment seem reasonable enough to you to suggest I wouldn't do so?
- monkeywork 4y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_States_of_America https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_States_of_America
  - oneeyedpigeon 4y ago
    Sure, as I said: > Apart from the most well-known historical example—I assume that's your reference But that particular confederacy doesn't have a monopoly on the term.

tfsh 4y ago

A cursory search on Google yields four results pertaining to the "confediverse". Being such a niche I wonder whether it's wise to label technology with such contrieved descriptions. I think it would be useful if you could explain the anatomy of such a term? My reading [1] on the matter indicates that it can't be defined as a fediverse because the content is not owned by individual posters, indeed if I were to post something on a mastodon instance, I do not retain sole ownership of the data - a moderator could delete it, and thus "censor" my opinions. But I question, is this a true critisism? And does federation require each client connected to a distributed node to in it's own right retain absolute sovereignty over the content posted on that federated instance? 1: https://evbogue.com/howtosavetwitter https://evbogue.com/howtosavetwitter

chatterhead 4y ago
Federation means you go from many to one. Confederation means you act as one but remain many. Instances can block other instances. That's not a Federation. Instances can have other rules and allow other content. That's not a Federation. Mastodon is a confederacy by definition.
- guipsp 4y ago
  What a useless distinction - no server is going to allow all content
  - chatterhead 4y ago
    A very important distinction. The prevailing system people subscribe to should be known and properly labelled. Otherwise it's just a bait and switch.
- BlueTemplar 4y ago
  I guess your definition of Confederation/confederacy applies to the World Wide Web too then ?
- arglebargle123 4y ago
  I'm too tired to make a Socialist Union joke about the fediverse right now but I'm absolutely convinced there's a good one to be made

crotho 4y ago

[dead]

oneeyedpigeon 4y ago

> The Left's alternative to Twitter is Mastodon a Confederacy. Why would that be ironic? Apart from the most well-known historical example—I assume that's your reference—there's nothing about a confederation that's inherently 'anti-left', as far as I can tell. The European Union resembles a confederation.

chatterhead 4y ago
- oneeyedpigeon 4y ago
  Hand-on-heart, I haven't downvoted any of your comments. Didn't my own comment seem reasonable enough to you to suggest I wouldn't do so?
monkeywork 4y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_States_of_America https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_States_of_America
- oneeyedpigeon 4y ago
  Sure, as I said: > Apart from the most well-known historical example—I assume that's your reference But that particular confederacy doesn't have a monopoly on the term.