4 ms·

They don't really control this server - they're using masto.host to host their instance.

CobrastanJorji 3y ago
Yes, but they COULD. If for some reason they decide that something's wrong with their host, they could just go offline, export the data onto a new host somewhere, move some DNS targets and set up some redirects, and bam, new server. The point is that some one social media company doesn't have a lock on the site.
lolinder 3y ago
They control it a whole lot more than they do Twitter, Facebook, or any other central platform. Control is a sliding scale. They could run it on a physical box in Wikimedia headquarters and you could still argue they don't fully control the server because their ISP could always cut them off. You have to make reasonable decisions based on your threat model and how easy it would be to move up the level-of-control ladder if needed. Getting on Mastodon at all represents a huge leap forward, and frees them up to migrate to a higher level of autonomy later.
- gochi 3y ago
  Nobody would argue that because if they did control the servers an ISP change would be effortless. Which is the point, the move to a higher level of autonomy is not going to happen later. It's far too much effort once they've already settled in. We should praise organizations that actually seek to normalize control over servers, not praise relying on yet another "fully managed" service. We can do that while also recognizing that them being on fediverse is nice in general. All of these are possible without stating falsehoods like "They control the servers".
  - lolinder 3y ago
    > if they did control the servers an ISP change would be effortless. I don't know where in the world you are, but I want to live there. Changing my ISP is far more intimidating to me than migrating a database and a few DNS records. > We should praise organizations that actually seek to normalize control over servers, not praise relying on yet another "fully managed" service. What would be enough to satisfy you? A VPS on AWS? A VPS on a smaller provider? A dedicated box at Hetzner? Or would it have to be a machine that they built from scratch and can physically access?
mananaysiempre 3y ago
They control the identities, and if they wanted to they could transition the identities at the price of—at worst—data loss. It’s the difference between having a blog using the Medium CMS and hosting and having one on a subdomain of medium.com—you can switch away in the former case but you’re completely stuck in the latter (which is why Medium took away the first option and Substack never had it).

Yes, but they COULD. If for some reason they decide that something's wrong with their host, they could just go offline, export the data onto a new host somewhere, move some DNS targets and set up some redirects, and bam, new server. The point is that some one social media company doesn't have a lock on the site.

lolinder 3y ago

They control it a whole lot more than they do Twitter, Facebook, or any other central platform. Control is a sliding scale. They could run it on a physical box in Wikimedia headquarters and you could still argue they don't fully control the server because their ISP could always cut them off. You have to make reasonable decisions based on your threat model and how easy it would be to move up the level-of-control ladder if needed. Getting on Mastodon at all represents a huge leap forward, and frees them up to migrate to a higher level of autonomy later.

gochi 3y ago
Nobody would argue that because if they did control the servers an ISP change would be effortless. Which is the point, the move to a higher level of autonomy is not going to happen later. It's far too much effort once they've already settled in. We should praise organizations that actually seek to normalize control over servers, not praise relying on yet another "fully managed" service. We can do that while also recognizing that them being on fediverse is nice in general. All of these are possible without stating falsehoods like "They control the servers".
- lolinder 3y ago
  > if they did control the servers an ISP change would be effortless. I don't know where in the world you are, but I want to live there. Changing my ISP is far more intimidating to me than migrating a database and a few DNS records. > We should praise organizations that actually seek to normalize control over servers, not praise relying on yet another "fully managed" service. What would be enough to satisfy you? A VPS on AWS? A VPS on a smaller provider? A dedicated box at Hetzner? Or would it have to be a machine that they built from scratch and can physically access?

mananaysiempre 3y ago

They control the identities, and if they wanted to they could transition the identities at the price of—at worst—data loss. It’s the difference between having a blog using the Medium CMS and hosting and having one on a subdomain of medium.com—you can switch away in the former case but you’re completely stuck in the latter (which is why Medium took away the first option and Substack never had it).