Comment by spartanatreyu

Comment by spartanatreyu 4 days ago

2 replies

> The most important one is that both your identity and your data are tied to whichever instance you pick [...] (i.e. the fact that you can't "port out" from an uncooperating server) really isn't [forgivable], in my view.

You can "soft-migrate" to another Mastodon account and server my creating your new account, then pointing your old account to your new account.

All the old content remains on the old account/server, and all the new content/notifications appear on the new account/server.

They have a "soft-migrate" (as opposed to a "hard-migrate" where all your activity would be migrated across to the new server) because Mastodon is built on the ActivityPub standard which has more than just Mastodon using it. Since it's an open standard, there are already proposals underway to allow the hard-migrate behavior, but it would be able to support Mastodon and all other compatible ActivityPub apps, not just Mastodon by itself.

> Mastodon's approach is firmly stuck in a past where sysadmins completely rule their respective kingdoms, and that distinction runs deep to the core protocol level and is, I'd argue, not fixable.

I see this as a feature, not a bug.

I'd rather have a reddit (before the great '23 moderator purge and subsequent death spiral) style moderation where each fifedom (e.g. subreddit/mastodon instance) has it's own rules and moderators that actually care about the designated content (e.g. cooking, gamedev, etc...) in their fifedom where the moderators are part of the community and the community can discuss and vote on rule changes.

As opposed to:

A facebook style moderation where the mods are a faceless corporation and where reporting something equals a filling out a form of preset answers which don't allow for further explanations and having maybe 3% of anything actually getting fixed.

lxgr 4 days ago

> You can "soft-migrate" to another Mastodon account and server my creating your new account, then pointing your old account to your new account.

Yes, on a cooperating outbound server. If it disappears, your handle is permanently gone, with no way for you to put up a redirect.

Contrast this with DNS-based handles on Bluesky, for example. All I need to do to change hosting providers there is changing a TXT record.

> I'd rather have a reddit [...] style moderation

Sure, that model works well in some situations, but why unnecessarily tangle content moderation with content and handle hosting?

  • spartanatreyu 4 days ago

    > Contrast this with DNS-based handles on Bluesky, for example. All I need to do to change hosting providers there is changing a TXT record.

    Mastodon has a similar external identity pointer feature. It uses a html tag on the page the A record points to (which IMHO is better since we don't want anyone with just enough information to be dangerous to break their own DNS).

    But the html tag is used to verify an account as the authentic account, not to handle redirects from one account to another.

    Personally, I'm not sure I'm a fan of using an external identifier to also handle redirects...

    If a social media handle gets hacked, you can put a notice on your website saying "Don't trust any account except this one: <link to your new account>", and by the same token: if your website gets hacked, you can put a note on your social media.

    But with the external identifier controlling redirects, if your website gets hacked (or nameserver with the dns method), then both your website and social media are compromised at the same time.