That too.

Here's a screenshot from another verifying that @reiver's robin.live -- as demo'ed yesterday at the #FediverseHouse developer meetup hosted by @socialwebfdn
-- ignores consent.

At a session I led at #FediForum last year there was talk about how unfortunate it is that we keep having blowups when developers ignore consent. As I pointed out, fediverse influencers with big platforms could help here by highlighting how many people in the fediverse value consent, and that there are some obvious steps to take to avoid a firestorm -- like, y'know, RESPECTING PEOPLE'S ALREADY-SET PREFERENCES.

But no. https://privacy.thenexus.today/consent-for-fediverse-developers/

@jaz @reiver.bsky.social

@josemurilo There's certainly a lot to critique about #FreeOurFeeds but reducing it to "we're going to build another Relay so that Bluesky's 'fire exits' are real" is just silly. The overall approach they're taking is similar to #SWF: there's a lot of money potentially floating around the ecosystem but investment is currently low,; and, there's a lot of concern about one big player dominating (Meta for ActivityPub and Bluesky in the ATmosphere).

So there's a win/win opportunity for an independent multipolar non-profit entity to complement the dominant corporation. Bluesky benefits just as much from FoF as the AI-focused companies (including Mozilla) who are the majority of the FoF 'custodians'. The need for an alternate Relay is just a convenient artifact that many people have (for whatever reason) focused on.

BTW this from the article was hysterical:

"The "Fediverse" has been around for a while and though it has never been more popular than it is now,..."

No, actually, the Fediverse had more than twice as many active users two years ago than it does today. Don't get me wrong, there's still a lot of interesting stuff happening here, but let's be realistic!

@evanprodromou @evan can you use a Tag Luke #swf ?

@vetehinen

Mastodon is the first listed under "Industry [sic] support": https://socialwebfoundation.org/2024/09/24/launch/

The #SWF is required to normalize commercialization of the Fediverse, despite today's existence of thousands of servers already: "Whether that’s advertising supported, or funded by charities and non-profits, or based on paid-for services, or affiliate revenue, we are working to find ways that companies can do well in the Fediverse." (from the link I have provided). This is what they are working on, in their own words.

I expressly spoke about not pretending it's about"crowdfunding", not about VCs. You deliberately chose to ignore that, to derail the discussion.

Which is why you are on mute now, I prefer to not interact with you further.

@Gargron

9 things the Social Web Foundation could do to prioritize safety (if they decide they want to)

https://privacy.thenexus.today/swf-safety/

Here's the list:

• Commit to spending at least X% on safety
• Support diverse participation on the W3C standards group's Trust and Safety task force
• Focus on consent-based tools and infrastructure
• Work with people who are targets of harassment to develop tools for collaborative defense
• Support threat modeling work
• Develop automated tools to help moderators
• Do any AI-related work in partnership with AI researchers who take an anti-oppressive, ethics-and-safety-first approach
• Partner with IFTAS

Will they? Time will tell!

Poll: How much of the Social Web Foundation's resources should go to safety-related projects?

Safety's a critical issue on the fediverse, and SWF's budget is reportedly "closing in on $1M", so they could have a big impact here. Then again, there are lots of other important issues as well.

Your thoughts?

(See Will the Social Web Foundation prioritize safety? disucsses the general topic for more detailed discussion, but please feel free to vote in the poll where or not you read the article!)

@fediversenews
#fediverse #safety #swf