atomicpoet
@atomicpoet@firefish.city
Product, QA & marketing @ #GreatApe & #SpaceHost
Putting the sauce in awesome.
- Submitted 2 months ago to fediversenews@venera.social | 0 comments
- Comment on 2 months ago:
@noondlyt@mastodon.social @fediversenews@venera.social Corporations come in many forms. Currently, the one you use is run through a non-profit corporation. Others like cosocial.ca and social.coop run as co-operative corporations. And yet others like twit.social and me.dm run as for-profit corporations.
The reason I avoid servers run by private individuals has nothing to do with profit and more to do with legal liability and financial sustainability. Put simply, I don't want my admin to wreck their life due to some asshole who does something untoward or even illegal. I also want to ensure that the funds I spend are well-managed.
I speak from experience. Last year, I spent over $2,000 on various Fediverse services, keeping certain servers afloat. - Comment on 2 months ago:
@noondlyt@mastodon.social @fediversenews@venera.social Two thoughts for you:
For legal liability reasons, I hope whatever server you join is run by a corporation, not a private individual. Lawsuits happen on the Internet, and without protection, they can inflict a lot of damage. Since the Fediverse assumes “opt out”, this is a particular concern.
Second, if I were to join a server, I would be concerned about how they’re paying the bills. Running a server can be costly, especially if that server allows open registrations. If a server can’t sustain itself financially, be very worried.
There’s a reason why my own server is closed. I spend $10/month to run it. - Comment on 2 months ago:
@noondlyt@mastodon.social @fediversenews@venera.social Yes, opt-in is consent. What exactly have you consented to? When have you specifically ever consented to a malicious server receiving your content? When have you explicitly consented to people, many of them bad actors, following you and sending you messages?
Regarding why the Fediverse-at-large prefers opt-out by default, it's pretty apparent to me: software engineers and server admins prize visibility and discoverability over safety and consent. - Comment on 2 months ago:
@noondlyt@mastodon.social @fediversenews@venera.social Okay, but I'm referencing everything that creates debate over opt-in/opt-out: bridges, bots, search engines, servers, federation, etc.
Every time there's a debate about what's allowable, someone says, "I didn't opt in".
However, if you're not running a server that blocks everything by default, except for whitelisted servers, you're not opting into anything. By default, when a server "sees" another server, they are federated. - Comment on 2 months ago:
@noondlyt@mastodon.social @fediversenews@venera.social I’m actually not referencing one particular corporate-backed instance. Threads wasn’t even top of mind.
- Submitted 2 months ago to fediversenews@venera.social | 14 comments
- Comment on 2 months ago:
@ch0ccyra1n@emeraldsocial.org Well, for one thing, threads don't render very well. From Mastodon, it's also not obvious that you're interacting with a group.
- Submitted 2 months ago to fediversenews@venera.social | 3 comments
- Submitted 6 months ago to fediversenews@venera.social | 3 comments
- Submitted 6 months ago to fediversenews@venera.social | 1 comment
- Submitted 6 months ago to fediversenews@venera.social | 3 comments
- Submitted 7 months ago to fediversenews@venera.social | 4 comments