Mastodon shifts to nonprofit ownership, calls for $5M in donations to expand.
His grand vision remains to leave Mastodon users in control of the social network, making their own decisions about what content is allowed or what appears in their timelines.
I don't use Mastadon cause I don't care for micro-blogging, but nevertheless, I like this.
"Oh, non-profit tech company! How noble! I trust that!"
How it's going:
I have no interest in these hollow PR dance moves until CEOs are publishing compelling outlines of how they have instituted complex legal frameworks that mean they can't reverse (or others can't reverse) these cynical moves to temporarily sway public sentiment during a building phase without say... Being legally compelled to immediately forfeit all historical stock earned and donate any historical salary and bonus compensation to the Red Cross or children's cancer research. They won't though, at best, this is an option, subject to change at will.
Remember that Zuckerberg initially allowed those tampons in the men's rooms and got a little praise, because some men do have periods and require tampons. They were in little wicker baskets, with the lids propped open on full display as you walked into any of their global offices. Zuckerberg then quietly told them internally to start closing the lids in the basket by default, still there, but closed, and then to place them on a lower shelf out of the way and ultimately, you now see the headlines that he ordered them fully removed performatively.
Declarative statements matter from people with proven, consistent integrity - that trait is inconsistent with anyone who can successfully rise to the level of modern CEO.
Open ai going for-profit will be funny/terrifying to see. They can't even break even right now. Even if they try to sell AI powered advertising or something it will be so stupidly expensive for them.
I heard of Mastodon a couple of years ago. I was still on Twitter and Facebook. I am not really tech savvy, so I didn't bother to go over to Mastodon. It was until just recent, I thought I would give it a try.
Long story short, I am on Mastodon, and I decided to ditch both Twitter and Facebook. Because, I like the layout and the format much better than the two. I even joined Friendica (open source platform like Facebook). So, as I started getting used to these open source social media platforms. They are much better and I would support Mastodon with some donations from time to time.
I mean, why pay $8 to Elon Musk, when you can do pretty much the same things on Mastodon? I wasn't going to throw in my 8 bucks just to get a stupid tweetdeck. Mastodon has its own deck, and it's totally free!
I am still investigating other various social media (open source) sites. I may even join Pixelfeed (alternative to Instagram).
I know you have to make money....but for a guy like Elon Musk, who owns Tesla, Space X, and a few others...why does he really need to charge people money to use his platform? I mean, I know he can do whatever he wants...but he has the money to keep the site going...without charging people 8 bucks to get "Premium" service.
The only thing Mastodon doesn't have that X (Formerly Twitter) has, is the fact that you can watch (or upload) live streaming.
I think it's unlikely that Mastodon (or other federated short form blogging platforms e.g. Pelorama) will integrate live-streaming as it's pretty far outside of the normal content they are built for. There is a project that does support live streaming and is federated though: Peertube https://joinpeertube.org/
I believe that since Tiktok is about to be banned - if no buyer is sought by Sunday, January 19; that a lot of people will flock to Red Note. Another Chinese-owned social media. Having said that, more and more people will start to try new alternative places. I like the idea of open source sites. I wished I have known this much sooner.
I like Odysee - an open source to Rumble - minus the ads. Unlike Rumble, you don't have to pay to remove ads (among other features). Odysee never has ads on their platform. Which I like a lot.
WebRTC could be used to provide peer-to-peer streaming. The load on the servers would be very minimal since the feeds would be sent directly from the host to the viewers. A lot of live streaming and video conferencing apps already use it to keep their hosting costs down.
The downside is that the IP address of the viewers will be exposed, even over a VPN unless precautions are taken by the user or the application.
(so far?) avoided falling off the right wing conspiracy cliff
People's views typically tend to move slowly but what's the current progressive position tends to move much faster, so if he's young enough he'll probably eventually fall off the progressive treadmill.
Good people are allowed to get annoyed when there's a ton of people complaining about non issues. From what I've heard Mastodon users are somewhat insufferable.
Why is there this very loud chorus of people touting bluesky as alternative to twitter instead of the far superior Mastodon?
Bluesky you are basically swapping a tyrant against a benevolent dictator, that dictator can become corrupted or sell bluesky to Musk Elon later on.... That is not a solution that is more like procrastination.
Bluesky has jack dorsey, Twitter founder, in its DNA. Dorsey cheered musk on and they call each other friends. Bluesky is not the win people want it to be, it's just a bandaid for your conscience with the same infected wound under the surface.
Because BlueSky has designers and Mastodon is a nightmare for new users. Same reason a lot of “superior” open source apps never take off. Devs are rarely also good designers. Until we start caring about normal people it will stay that way.
Nightmare is massively overstating it. Mastodon's UI/UX is neither a nightmare nor difficult to use. People who say this stuff leave me scratching my head.
In my view, the only legitimate criticism of Mastodon is about the lack of an algorithm that's constantly bubbling content to the top, but that's a valid design choice that many people prefer over the toxic algos over at X/Twitter.
I think it is because Bluesky is simpler and easier to understand, as well as more familiar to use than mastodon. My favorite streamer said he is reluctant to move to the fediverse because of how different it is and the learning curve it has to it. I'm also, like, EXTREMELY new here and understand but once you start to get used to it, its easy to see how the fediverse and this "New Social" wave is far superior; the only hard part is getting "normies" to try it long enough to build enough familiarity to see that.
It's absolutely insane to hear that a streamer, of all types of people, said there's a learning curve to it. Twitch is/was bewildering to me, just as a user, much less a streamer who would need to learn to configure and use OBS, etc. SMH.
Considering the people pushing bluesky are the same ones usually praising government surveillance, I don’t trust it for one second. Smells like a psyop honeypot.
It just feels more like Classic Twitter, and I can imagine some users like that vibe, despite Mastodon perhaps having the better technicals to keep social media federated. I use both and they have their audience. There are services that allow crossposting too, so I've got a BlueSky instance out there copying my Mastodon into that feed. Just to reach out.
Mastodon’s interface creates a self-selection bias of more technically inclined people, and is too dissimilar to twitter for the average user to want to invest time in learning it.
I keep hammering this point every time this is brought up, PR and NAMES matter! BlueSky is a nice non threatening name, Mastadon is an awful name for an app. It sounds way too close to mastrubate.
Lol, I guess we all make different connections, but to me "mastodon" doesn't sound like "masterbate" any more than "blue sky" sounds like "blue balls" ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I set up the Ars Mastodon instance, and speaking as a relatively educated and technically savvy person I found it extremely confusing. And the more I learned later the more I don't feel remotely bad about being confused, it's honestly pretty messy.
I put Ars on the main instance, and I think it was the right call. We're not going to maintain our own, at least at this time, and trusting a random instance that's very difficult to vet is kinda sketchy.
We ran a guest editorial a while back that I think really clearly outlines the various issues:
But you know, it's really okay. It doesn't have to be big, or popular or mainstream. As long as it survives and people like it? That's good enough.
I think going into an era of balkanization of social isn't the worst thing.
One of my complaints with Mastodon and similars is that you can't search only for posts of a specific instance, or temporarily mute a single instance from your feed. There's also some sort of "invisible wall" for Pleroma users (niche of a niche), as their public posts simply don't show up in public Mastodon searches, though I don't know whether that's a problem with Mastodon or Pleroma.
From my limited knowledge, you'd need one account on each instance and have all of them boosting the original post, which would make them more visible in their local instances.
The point isnt money. The point is the "benevolent dictator" model, see Matt Mullenweg and the current WordPress controversy. The whole future of that software depends on this guy because he controls the most important assets (like the trademarks) personally.
Eugen and the whole Mastodon development team want to avoid a situation like that.
Can anyone savvy to the nuance here please let me know how this is any different from Altman and ChatGPT?
As o followed along lightly, my read was that they used non-profit foundation structure to win public trust and calm initial opposition to them creating an unethical product that will ultimately destroy us all and then they fired all the people focused on ethics and codified the non-profit status.
Is this meaningfully different, or likely a similar tactic?
This is what I have found about the governmance structure of OpenAI. It's complicated but basically the working company is a for-profit controlled by a non-profit, controlled by employees and other investors, the non-profit is also controlled by a board of driectors. Also it's all based in the US.
The Mastodon model is probably going to be a lot simpler and will probably not allow big investors to take ownership of the company. Also they are looking for a suitable country in the EU that will enforce the non-profit's obligations to the people. Being based in the EU is in itself a huge difference, and by choice. They have not set anything in stone yet so it's all specualtion essentialy.
Also there is the trust thing: OpenAI does not need trust from people, other AI companies are for profit too and work just fine. Mastodon is build around the fact that it is different from things like twitter. If they start doing maliciuos stuff, they will loose trust and in turn their main selling point. Also openness.
Also it is open source is it not? So any progress they have made can be used to create a competitor. Basically the whole business model is different.
I haven't seen their governance structure yet, but I don't think it will ever be like Altman and OpenAI. Eugen just doesn't have that cult of personality around him, and there's not that much money in a free and open-source platform that doesn't lock people in.
I have recently been using it more to connect with others on a new subject, but now for the first time ever on the internet since early 00's, we are all owners of it ourselves. All the great new stuff was always owned by others and frankly I'm sick of it.
I never even liked twitter. Then I followed #nature and #bloomscrolling on mastodon for a while and my home feed was a feast of beautiful pics. So now there's one use for me for microblogging. Neat! Mastodon does what it says it does and even offers 'default' instances. I'd love for some GO's to help reach that donation goal quicker, so we can all get with the program and ditch corpo social media. -Why doesn't my library host it's own peertube?? #MakeLibrariesGreatAgain
I couldn't find any legalese on mastodon.social that my toots are somehow not my property. While it's true that I no longer have total control over its distribution, that doesn't mean I have somehow relinquished ownership.
You seem quite confident that that is incorrect , with your one line reply. Could you link or explain where you got this information?
152k to 1.5 milhouse is definitely an astronomical increase. Where does that number come from? For that matter...has he been funding all of this on his own up until this point?
What does ceding control even mean? Mastodon, just like Lemmy, is federated - each instance has its own governance. It was never controlled by a single person to begin with.
He can cede control of the GitHub repository, I guess, but:
That's giving the controls to the contributors, not the users.
The article does not even hint at the existence of source code, and the announcement itself doesn't talk about changes in that aspect either, so I don't think that's what's happening here.
It was never controlled by a single person to begin with.
The computer program called Mastodon was (and still is for now) completely controlled by Eugen Rochko. In the future it will be controlled by a non-profit.
In as much as FOSS can be forked, it's not really completely controlled (and there are a number of active mastodon forks that federate fine with standard mastodon servers)
Someone is still in charge of the git account. No matter how many commits there are being made, unless the owner of the repo approves to merge them, it's not happening.
And sure, someone could create a fork that includes their changes if they aren't being merged, but then this separate fork might at some point lose compatibility with the original software. And on a purely semantic note, this fork wouldn't be the original mastodon either.
I take it that you missed the whole WordPress situation that developed over the last couple of months?
It's about control over the intellectual property (trademarks, copyright) as well as control over the company which pays the developers. One does definitely not want a single person in control of these things, otherwise they can hold the whole project hostage (like Mullenweg is accused of, in the case of WordPress).
Additionally, the change also gives them a preferable tax status than the previous arrangement.
We should not expect greatness from the men who create these corporations, they are not great men, they are not even good or especially intelligent men. They fell into their position by luck, the one in a million triers for whom circumstance clicked into position. The only thing that sets them apart and perhaps accounts for their success is how they are so consistently open to sycophancy and manipulation by the pack of cold and savage business graduates that flock to any form of success. When a person is against type, as seemingly is the case here, they stand out and just once in a while are capable of real greatness.
Nothing, which is okay. People make the mistake of thinking users have any even passing interested in a good platform with social media, not just the social connections on it.
That is why Bluesky can be so successful: It's an absolutely smooth and effortless drop-in replacement for Twitter, and has no gathered enough momentum for it to be easy to find existing people you want to follow on it, further drawing more people who you might want to follow in. So the motivation to use it is there, and the switch itself is essentially unnoticable.
No it is the opposite, this is the first paragraph in the article:
Mastodon announced Monday that it's shifting its structure over the next six months to become wholly owned by a European nonprofit organization—"affirming the intent that Mastodon should not be owned or controlled by a single individual."
The blog discussed progress on a "privacy-respecting search tool" that could be used to explore the entire Fediverse, a collection of independent social media networks that Mastodon connects to. That could make it possible to discover more content without depending on a "For You" algorithm mining user data.
Inshallah. Lack of search is my biggest gripe with Mastodon.
Problem being that any instance only displays those posts under a hashtag that it knows about. Currently, if I follow #formula1 from my home instance, I'm seeing different posts than if I follow #formula1 from a certain other instance.
Will probably get better with developments in that aspect in the next few years.
Same here. I still try to use it once every day in support but I don't like having such a low limit (or any limit at all, really) on how many characters I'm allowed to use for my posts or response. I am more of a macro-blogger as I tend to be very verbose; especially posting online. I do, however, think it is important to create accounts, use and donate to the project that is mastodon; as they are leading by example in this "New Social" era or movement we are all apart of. It would be a shame that something like this isn't able to continue, let alone expand, because not enough people supported the project -- even though such project is giving the people exactly what they wanted and asked for. Let's all try to show our support behind such a bold and selfless decision.
There are different Mastodon instances with different post character limits. You could also use an ActivityPub based macroblog (like write.as / WriteFreely(?)).
Nice to know! I think lemmy has been meeting my needs pretty well, as there are no limits that I’m aware of here. What would be compelling for something like write.as and writefreely?
An interesting real time experiment to see how long it takes for stratification caused echo chambers and/or extremists zealots from both ends of the political spectrum to seize control of the platform. Turning the platform into a hellscape of zealots fighting each other for dominance and the eradication of all the others.
Sadly, humans as a rule need adult guidance for polite interactions to prevent violence. The sad part is it has become impossible to pick said adult capable of doing the job. And anyone in their right mind should run from such a job anyway.
His grand vision remains to leave Mastodon users in control of the social network, making their own decisions about what content is allowed or what appears in their timelines.
So uh... Mastodon will not have a moderation team?
I mean this makes sense, but how exactly is after-stopping-moderation Meta different then?