6 ms·

> The people re-publishing my Mastodon posts on Twitter didn't think to ask whether I was ok with them doing that. The OP lost me here. You posted your opinion

> The people re-publishing my Mastodon posts on Twitter didn't think to ask whether I was ok with them doing that. The OP lost me here. You posted your opinion to the public internet. Whether or not you didn't think your audience would reshare using the platform, they could have shared it in a myriad of ways, including posting it to sites like this one. It's even harder to moderate how your opinion gets spread around on the fediverse than on Twitter, where blocking and takedowns are possible. That's sort of the point of the fediverse.

justsomehnguy 4y ago
In the footer of the site: >> All content © Hugh Rundle except as noted in Acknowledgements. Text licensed CC-BY 4.0. >> Please ensure any redistribution adheres to the Creative Commons Best Practices for Attribution.
- jefftk 4y ago
  That seems completely compatible with sharing a link, which was one of the things the author objected to? (I agree with them in not liking screenshot-sharing culture)
  - dreamling 4y ago
    I think their biggest issue was suddenly being viral, while also dealing with server incursion/tons of new accounts, which meant that lots and lots of people are suddenly clamoring specifically for their attention/making requests for said lists/asking what the rules are/responding directly to the post that went viral but without being vetted beforehand or understanding the previous implicit social rules. While they started with a small discussion with people informed about the differences and server stress became instead a tornado of a much larger discussion while also dumping more stress on the servers, as well as emotional stress of having to deal with all the incoming attention. So. They are overwhelmed, and everything seems like it needs to be solved with the highest priority, but they aren't set up with enough help desk/sub-admin people to filter/protect themselves. Basically all mastodon server admins have a need, at least temporarily, for some business style structure. They need a Janine Melnitz (Ghostbusters Secretary) to prioritize server is burning down messages, organize non-server is burning down contact requests, and direct help/press requests to appropriate people. And perhaps someone else available to work on social onboarding. All personal blog/toot/tweets posted by said overwhelmed server admins should also be taken with a grain (or more) of salt. They may feel differently when things are calmer, or might be able to be more diplomatic in general. Overall though, it was good to hear about how the Author is feeling, and how self-aware they are about how it was similar to when their cohort joined and had to adapt and how the previous fediverse admins might have dealt with similar things. "..there are names for the sort of person who makes lists of people so others can monitor their communications. They’re not nice names.”
- Zak 4y ago
  That appears to be true for the https://hughrundle.net https://hughrundle.net website. It would be unreasonable for the author to complain about consent for people sharing his blog posts anywhere after publishing a public license granting consent to the whole world to do just that (as long as people are following the license). It does not appear to be true for the https://ausglam.space/@hugh https://ausglam.space/@hugh Mastodon account. Copying the Mastodon posts and sharing them on Twitter without permission is a copyright violation, and generally rude.
  - justsomehnguy 4y ago
    The problem here is what a person who is willfully slaps CC-BY on their [personal] content (and a librarian to boot) should understand the caveats of providing a public access to their opinions. Instead there are "I'm suddenly feel offended because people quote my public opinion without explicitly asking me if they are allowed to do so". > without permission is a copyright violation It has nothing to do with a copyright, especially if the quoting (in any way) was done with attribution. > and generally rude If it was taken out from a non-public medium (I'm not even sure if Mastodon has this functionality[0]) then sure, but as I understand this is not what happened here. Note: I checked that M. instance[1] and there is no signage about content ownership or anything like that. [0] looks like it doesn't? https://ausglam.space/@hugh/109321247180285447 https://ausglam.space/@hugh/109321247180285447 [1] https://ausglam.space/about/more https://ausglam.space/about/more
phoe-krk 4y ago
> That's sort of the point of the fediverse. You're mistaking the technical implementation of the Fediverse with the social contract that maintains its existence. The Fediverse is built on the idea of consent, where interacting with you happens because you consent to that interaction happening, and you can withdraw that consent at any time by e.g. deleting your original post. (That's also why the "quote tweet" feature from Twitter is absent on the Fediverse.) When people and instances don't follow that contract, they simply get defederated.
- albrewer 4y ago
  That doesn't control the existence of screenshots and copy-paste though. Once you have released something to the internet, there's no guarantee it won't be copied and distributed via channels you don't desire.
  - berkes 4y ago
    Certainly. Just because it's technically possible, that doesn't make it "good" or even "sought".
- Cyberdog 4y ago
  > You're mistaking the technical implementation of the Fediverse with the social contract that maintains its existence. People are unpredictable. If there are "correct" ways of using the Fediverse, they need to be implemented into the code. Otherwise people can and will use it in whatever ways the code allows. At any rate, there are many people, myself included, who don't really care if my posts get screenshotted or reposted outside of my server or circle of friends. How is someone supposed to determine to whom to apply this "social contract?" Again, the default mode of thinking when posting anything to the internet should be "everyone, everywhere, forever into the future, will be able to see this." The Fedi is not immune from this rule. > (That's also why the "quote tweet" feature from Twitter is absent on the Fediverse.) It's absent from Mastodon. Other front ends support it. Not sure why Mastodon is holding out.
- aaravchen 4y ago
  Yes, and the social contract is that if you post to the tool which is designed exclusively to broadcast your message publicly, it's ok to broadcast it publicly. If you wanted a social contract of limited visibility, then a tool which includes or supports that would be a good first step.
WorldMaker 4y ago
Mastodon has multiple privacy request levels and there's a "follower's only" level. That may still be seen as "posting to the public internet" but there's a courtesy expected there that's different from "public" posting.
- lzooz 4y ago
  >On Saturday evening I published a post explaining a couple of things about Mastodon's history of dealing with toxic nodes on the network. Then everything went bananas. By 10pm I had locked my account to require followers to be approved He locked his account AFTER he posted the post. So yes this rant makes no sense at all.
  - WorldMaker 4y ago
    Locking an account doesn't obviate the expected courtesy of a "Followers Only" post. Locking an account just makes it harder for new followers to follow without a vetted request.
    - lzooz 4y ago
      Ah I misread - I did not know that there was that kind of glanularity, that you could set specific posts as private. My bad!
- aaravchen 4y ago
  I'd be interested to get a source in that. To my knowledge, the big three pure microblogging stacks, Mastodon, Pleorama, and Soapbox, have no such controls. Everything posted is always fully public, it only limited who gets automatically notified of the new posts under certain conditions ("DM" doesn't notify all followers, but it's still funny visible in feeds). If you're taking about something on Friendica or Hubzilla, you very well could be right, or maybe it's just not a feature I've seen it heard about from anyone before.
  - WorldMaker 4y ago

justsomehnguy 4y ago

In the footer of the site: >> All content © Hugh Rundle except as noted in Acknowledgements. Text licensed CC-BY 4.0. >> Please ensure any redistribution adheres to the Creative Commons Best Practices for Attribution.

jefftk 4y ago
That seems completely compatible with sharing a link, which was one of the things the author objected to? (I agree with them in not liking screenshot-sharing culture)
- dreamling 4y ago
  I think their biggest issue was suddenly being viral, while also dealing with server incursion/tons of new accounts, which meant that lots and lots of people are suddenly clamoring specifically for their attention/making requests for said lists/asking what the rules are/responding directly to the post that went viral but without being vetted beforehand or understanding the previous implicit social rules. While they started with a small discussion with people informed about the differences and server stress became instead a tornado of a much larger discussion while also dumping more stress on the servers, as well as emotional stress of having to deal with all the incoming attention. So. They are overwhelmed, and everything seems like it needs to be solved with the highest priority, but they aren't set up with enough help desk/sub-admin people to filter/protect themselves. Basically all mastodon server admins have a need, at least temporarily, for some business style structure. They need a Janine Melnitz (Ghostbusters Secretary) to prioritize server is burning down messages, organize non-server is burning down contact requests, and direct help/press requests to appropriate people. And perhaps someone else available to work on social onboarding. All personal blog/toot/tweets posted by said overwhelmed server admins should also be taken with a grain (or more) of salt. They may feel differently when things are calmer, or might be able to be more diplomatic in general. Overall though, it was good to hear about how the Author is feeling, and how self-aware they are about how it was similar to when their cohort joined and had to adapt and how the previous fediverse admins might have dealt with similar things. "..there are names for the sort of person who makes lists of people so others can monitor their communications. They’re not nice names.”
Zak 4y ago
That appears to be true for the https://hughrundle.net https://hughrundle.net website. It would be unreasonable for the author to complain about consent for people sharing his blog posts anywhere after publishing a public license granting consent to the whole world to do just that (as long as people are following the license). It does not appear to be true for the https://ausglam.space/@hugh https://ausglam.space/@hugh Mastodon account. Copying the Mastodon posts and sharing them on Twitter without permission is a copyright violation, and generally rude.
- justsomehnguy 4y ago
  The problem here is what a person who is willfully slaps CC-BY on their [personal] content (and a librarian to boot) should understand the caveats of providing a public access to their opinions. Instead there are "I'm suddenly feel offended because people quote my public opinion without explicitly asking me if they are allowed to do so". > without permission is a copyright violation It has nothing to do with a copyright, especially if the quoting (in any way) was done with attribution. > and generally rude If it was taken out from a non-public medium (I'm not even sure if Mastodon has this functionality[0]) then sure, but as I understand this is not what happened here. Note: I checked that M. instance[1] and there is no signage about content ownership or anything like that. [0] looks like it doesn't? https://ausglam.space/@hugh/109321247180285447 https://ausglam.space/@hugh/109321247180285447 [1] https://ausglam.space/about/more https://ausglam.space/about/more

phoe-krk 4y ago

> That's sort of the point of the fediverse. You're mistaking the technical implementation of the Fediverse with the social contract that maintains its existence. The Fediverse is built on the idea of consent, where interacting with you happens because you consent to that interaction happening, and you can withdraw that consent at any time by e.g. deleting your original post. (That's also why the "quote tweet" feature from Twitter is absent on the Fediverse.) When people and instances don't follow that contract, they simply get defederated.

albrewer 4y ago
That doesn't control the existence of screenshots and copy-paste though. Once you have released something to the internet, there's no guarantee it won't be copied and distributed via channels you don't desire.
- berkes 4y ago
  Certainly. Just because it's technically possible, that doesn't make it "good" or even "sought".
Cyberdog 4y ago
> You're mistaking the technical implementation of the Fediverse with the social contract that maintains its existence. People are unpredictable. If there are "correct" ways of using the Fediverse, they need to be implemented into the code. Otherwise people can and will use it in whatever ways the code allows. At any rate, there are many people, myself included, who don't really care if my posts get screenshotted or reposted outside of my server or circle of friends. How is someone supposed to determine to whom to apply this "social contract?" Again, the default mode of thinking when posting anything to the internet should be "everyone, everywhere, forever into the future, will be able to see this." The Fedi is not immune from this rule. > (That's also why the "quote tweet" feature from Twitter is absent on the Fediverse.) It's absent from Mastodon. Other front ends support it. Not sure why Mastodon is holding out.
aaravchen 4y ago
Yes, and the social contract is that if you post to the tool which is designed exclusively to broadcast your message publicly, it's ok to broadcast it publicly. If you wanted a social contract of limited visibility, then a tool which includes or supports that would be a good first step.

WorldMaker 4y ago

Mastodon has multiple privacy request levels and there's a "follower's only" level. That may still be seen as "posting to the public internet" but there's a courtesy expected there that's different from "public" posting.

lzooz 4y ago
>On Saturday evening I published a post explaining a couple of things about Mastodon's history of dealing with toxic nodes on the network. Then everything went bananas. By 10pm I had locked my account to require followers to be approved He locked his account AFTER he posted the post. So yes this rant makes no sense at all.
- WorldMaker 4y ago
  Locking an account doesn't obviate the expected courtesy of a "Followers Only" post. Locking an account just makes it harder for new followers to follow without a vetted request.
  - lzooz 4y ago
    Ah I misread - I did not know that there was that kind of glanularity, that you could set specific posts as private. My bad!
aaravchen 4y ago
I'd be interested to get a source in that. To my knowledge, the big three pure microblogging stacks, Mastodon, Pleorama, and Soapbox, have no such controls. Everything posted is always fully public, it only limited who gets automatically notified of the new posts under certain conditions ("DM" doesn't notify all followers, but it's still funny visible in feeds). If you're taking about something on Friendica or Hubzilla, you very well could be right, or maybe it's just not a feature I've seen it heard about from anyone before.
- WorldMaker 4y ago