The Fediverse is not one thing. It's a bunch of different sites that are interconnected. You can join a site that has strict moderation, or you can join one that has no moderation at all.
Personally, I'm not here because I think moderation on Instagram and X is too active. Rather to the contrary.
In my case, somewhat chronological order:
If a nodebb forum I have an account on decides to federate I might reach double digits.
Edit: I forgot I also have a Pixelfed account! So double digits already.
The positive vibe of the comments here got me checking out the comfy channel, and it's awesome. Perfect background music for working.
The occasional interventions ("you're listening to Radio Free Fedi") tend to be a bit long, which can be distracting. But that's honestly the worst thing I have to say after hours of listening.
I ended up checking out their website every now and then to follow whoever I was listening to on Mastodon. So it's also a good way to discover independent artists.
As long as you haven't given away intellectual property to a label, they're yours to do with as you please.
And you cannot download music from RFF - it's like a regular radio. You listen, discover, and move on. Submitting music to it is not the same as giving up ownership - you choose whatever license you want.
I can't say I ever really understood what Newsmast is up to, but Channel.org looks pretty nifty. It seems like a good way for organisations consisting of several independent people to get together and present all their federated content in one public channel.
The only redeeming feature about this is that it only looks about as awful as any other social media.
Which is not very redeeming at all, of course.
The comments on the post also aren't from Mozilla.social. It's not like they would have been happy to see Mozilla as a successful actor on the Fediverse either.
The trolls in the comment section at least hints at the fact that creating a more positive and constructive online space proved more difficult than they imagined.
I was curious, and joined the queue for the closed beta a long time ago. Never heard back. They explored something new in closed channels, decided not to go for it, backed out. I don't really think they need to justify the decision.
Running a social media is a huge effort, and there's a lot of trolls out there actively targeting Mozilla. I imagine it's just more trouble than it's worth.
The official story is that Meta is worried about being sued by people suddenly seeing their content pushed to some random website without their consent if it's enabled by default, so they won't risk enabling it by default. At least not before the fediverse is huge enough that everything you post going everywhere on the internet is the expected behaviour.
Fair enough really. I wouldn't want to be sued for that either, and they obviously cannot expect Congress to understand.. anything.
They define decentralisation as an even distribution of users? Or did I get that wrong skimming the paper?
This seems arbitrary. Mastodon is a decentralised network, no matter how big Mastodon.social is. Lemmy is equally decentralised, even though there's a dominant actor.
The other hubs in the network don't revolve around mastodon.social/lemmy.world. they connect to each other bilaterally - if the central hubs disappeared over night it wouldn't affect them all that much.
I think the notion that decentralised networks can't have hubs of varying sizes is plain wrong, and a fundamental misunderstanding of what decentralized means.
Very cool!
Do you be have any idea how tolling scraping these data is for the servers?
If this is something you want to keep working on, maybe it could be combined with a sort of Threadiverse fund raiser: we collectively gather funds to cover the cost of scraping (plus some for supporting the threadiverse, ideally), and once we reach the target you release the map based on the newest data and money is distributed proportionally to the different instances.
Maybe it's a stupid idea, or maybe it would add too much pressure into the equation. But I think it could be fun! :)
It's accessibility, and it's also sovereignty.
Another way of rephrasing this decision is "we have decided to stop publishing information on our official website, as we receive more interaction on X". Which is pretty questionable.