Find the latitude of any place.  

EUROPE's Long-Awaited Documentary Will Finally Arrive


EUROPE's Long-Awaited Documentary Will Finally Arrive In Early 2026

Washington voters have an opportunity to strengthen the WA Cares Fund by voting Approved on SJR 8201 this autumn

Advocates for the bill have mounted a bi-partisan campaign backed by big-name politicians, organizations and a political committee as they hope WA voters will reflect the broad-based support the bill received in the state legislature. 

-TermCare -Ballot

Find the latitdue and longitude of any place Bei dieser Entschlackungsaktion knnte Hubzilla sich eigentlich auch die eine oder andere Scheibe von (streams) und Forte abschneiden, die in der Bedienung eine Ecke leichter sind und vor allem eher an das heutige Fediverse angepat sind, das dominiert wird von ActivityPub und Mastodon. Hubzilla ist ja im Grunde immer noch ausgelegt auf eine Vision eines vollnomadischen "Grid" auf Zot-Basis, das in den 2010ern mal die "Fderation" beerben sollte. Nur da dieser Traum schon seit Ende der 2010er ausgetrumt ist, seit sich das ActivityPub-basierte Fediverse um Mastodon herum entwickelt.
Es fllt auch auf, da Hubzilla etliche Features hat, die wohl mal (und sei es schon bei der Entwicklung von Red 2012) nachtrglich reingebaut worden sind, die jetzt optional und standardmig deaktiviert sind. Damit soll Hubzilla sich wohl standardmig weiter anfhlen wie 2015 oder gar wie die gute alte Red Matrix. Das macht Hubzilla aber nicht einfacher im Gegenteil, das sind Sachen, wo pepe und ich gebetsmhlenartig immer wieder drauf hinweisen: Wenn man einen Kanal aufsetzt, dann gehren die eingeschaltet, bevor man irgendwas anderes macht!
Solche Sachen sind auf (streams) und Forte mitunter von vornherein aktiviert oder gleich hartgecodet, wenn es gar keinen wirklichen Sinn ergibt, sie abzuschalten, bzw. die schon auf Hubzilla jeder aktiviert hat, der Ahnung hat. Ich schtze mal, schon zu seligen Osada- und Zap-Zeiten sind viele dieser Sachen in den Kern gewandert oder standardmig aktiviert worden.
Beispiel: Pubcrawl. Ist auf Hubzilla eine App und fr neue Kanle standardmig deaktiviert. Alle bidirektionalen, nichtnomadischen Protokolle sind standardmig deaktiviert, weil Hubzilla eben noch auf dieses vollnomadische "Grid" ausgelegt ist und z. B. ActivityPub der nomadischen Identitt in die Suppe spuckt. Aber seien wir mal ehrlich: Hubzilla-Newbies wollen als allererstes mal mit Mastodon verbunden bleiben. Einen vollnomadischen Kanal wrde nur ein Experte wollen und auch das nur selten.
Auf (streams) ist ActivityPub nicht nur Teil des Kerns, sondern standardmig aktiviert. Den Schalter gibt's eigentlich nur als "Anti-Mastodon-Zugbrcke" fr individuelle Kanle. Und sollte das Uafilter oder FedUp mal fr einzelne Kanle aktivierbar werden, wird der Schalter ziemlich obsolet, was er auf Serverebene eigentich jetzt schon ist.
Anderes Beispiel: Auf Hubzilla sind Privacy Groups eine App und standardmig deaktiviert, und du hast nur eine Privacy Group namens "Freunde". Auf (streams) und Forte sind Zugriffslisten auch eine App, aber meines Wissens standardmig aktiviert.
Noch ein Beispiel: Auf Kommentare zu antworten, ist auf Hubzilla optional und standardmig deaktiviert, und die Option ist schwer zu finden, weil Hubzillas Konfiguration so verquast und verteilt ist. Wieso ist das berhaupt optional Was kann denn heutzutage sonst noch keine Baumstruktur und nur flache Threads auer dem ollen phpBB Auf (streams) und Forte, die schon lange Baumstruktur haben, stellt sich die Frage gar nicht, weil es eben nicht mehr optional ist.
Noch ein Beispiel: Daumen runter ist auf Hubzilla optional und standardmig deaktiviert das war es damals auch auf Friendica, wo ich noch da war. Auf (streams) und Forte ist es hartgecodet. Strt ja keinen, wieso also optional machen Ein Schalter weniger in der Konfiguration.
Noch ein Beispiel: Superblock. Gibt's als App auf (streams) und Forte nicht mehr, weil die Funktionalitt so essentiell ist, da sie jetzt fest in den Kern eingebaut ist. Auf Hubzilla mu man das erst noch einschalten.
Noch ein Beispiel: Erweiterte Profile sind auf (streams) und Forte keine Option mit gut verstecktem Schalter mehr, weil das Profil von vornherein "erweitert" ist. Wieder ein berflssiger Schalter weniger.
Auf (streams) und Forte sind auch Kanalquellen keine normalerweise deaktivierte App mehr, sondern in den Kern eingebaut und immer verfgbar. Auch wenn das Luxus ist.
berhaupt die Konfiguration. Auf Hubzilla merkt man wirklich, wie alles Mgliche an Features nachtrglich eingebaut worden ist und die Konfiguration dafr irgendwo drangepappt wurde, mal hier, mal da. Du hast die Einstellungen im Kanalmen, da findest du aber lngst nicht alles. Du hast die Zahnrder, die einige von uns erst nach Jahren entdeckt haben. Es gibt sogar noch Einstellungen, die nur unter /settings/features zu finden sind, das wiederum nur im "Newbie-Men" einen Link hat. Und den "Custom"-Kanaltyp kannst du nicht bei den Kanaltypen konfigurieren, wo du ihn auswhlst, sondern unter Privatsphre.
Auf (streams) und Forte hast du beinahe alles an einem Ort, nmlich unter "Einstellungen" im App-Men (auch wenn dein Muskelgedchtnis dann flucht, weil der Menpunkt jetzt in einem anderen Men ist). Das schliet Kanalmanagement ein, das schliet dein Profil ein, das schliet Berechtigungsrollen ein, das schliet blockierte Nutzer und Server (!) ein. Ein paar Sachen werden noch nur ber die App konfiguriert, etwa Zugriffslisten.
A propos Berechtigungsrollen (ex Kontaktrollen): Braucht man nicht mehr. Berechtigungen fr Kontakte kann man direkt an den Kontakten einstellen ohne Rumgehampel mit Rollen. Rollen gibt's noch, aber als Schablonen, wenn man bestimmten Kontakten eh immer denselben Satz Berechtigungen verpat. Wenn du eine Berechtigung anders haben willst fr einen Kontakt, brauchst du dafr nicht erst eine neue Rolle anzulegen, sondern du gehst zum Kontakt und legst den Schalter fr die eine Berechtigung um. Fertig.
Last but not least braucht man auf (streams) auch nicht mehr mit verb == Announce im Filter rumzufriemeln. Statt dessen gibt's einen Schalter pro Kontakt, der Boosts aussperrt.
Da Hubzillas Features so unbekannt sind, liegt auch daran, da Hubzilla noch so unbekannt ist. Wer kann sich noch an Anfang des Jahres erinnern, wo es nach Facebook-Exodus aussah Da war auch allenfalls von Friendica als "die Facebook-Alternative" im Fediverse die Rede. Hubzilla kannte keine Sau, (streams) und Forte noch weniger.
Das hat ja bekanntlich mehrere Ursachen.

Dieser mangelnde Bekanntheitsgrad fhrt dann zu "Hubzilla auf Wish bestellt"-Situationen wie mit Bonfire oder Tim Berners-Lees Solid. Ich meine, 2010 htten schon sehr viele Leute sehr viel Crowdfunding-Geld fr diaspora* sparen knnen, wenn Mike schon im Mrz oder April an die ffentlichkeit gegangen wre und gesagt htte, Leute, ich bau euch hier den freien, quelloffenen, unkommerziellen, dezentralen Facebook-Killer, und bis zum Sommer steht die Kiste.
Letztlich sind viele Hubzilla-Features fr Hubzilla-Nutzer ganz alltglich, aber fr Nicht-Hubzilla-Nutzer, und dazu zhlen auch fast alle Fediverse-Entwickler, vllig unvorstellbar, weil sie die weder von Twitter noch von Mastodon kennen. Kein Wunder also, da viele Fediverse-Entwickler Bahnhof verstehen, wenn man ihnen von diesen Features erzhlt.
# # # # # # # # # # # # # # Maybe it'd make sense to get the devs aboard, and for Hubzilla and for (streams) and Forte. And I think there's a new place being worked on where Fediverse devs can meet in the Fediverse itself, but I don't have any more details right now.
I can see four things becoming tricky when it comes to comment control. One is if it isn't enough to add support for another implementation, and if either side actually had to change the way it handles permission in a way that isn't backwards-compatible.
The second one is that Hubzilla, (streams) and Forte don't simply allow or forbid comments, but they can allow only certain actors to comment, and be it all contacts of a channel. I don't know if GTS has that feature, or if it can support it.
The third one is that (streams) and Forte can limit the time in which a post can be commented. Channels can be configured so that comments are only allowed for a certain timespan, and individual posts can be configured so that they can only be commented on until a certain point in the future.
Now, the thing is that, much unlike all the many microblogging applications, the permissions in a conversation are always the same on (streams) and Forte (and also on Hubzilla). All comments, regardless of whether they come from (streams) or Mastodon or Lemmy or wherever, always have the same permissions as the post. Replying to a public conversation with a DM is not supported, for example the DM will be regarded as a public comment.
This also means that you're only allowed to reply to a comment in a thread if you're also allowed to comment on the post itself. But if you're allowed to comment on the post, you're also allowed to reply to any comment in the conversation, full stop.
Speaking in "non-nomadic, no-enclosed-conversations ActivityPub" terms, this means that at a certain point after a post was sent, the owner of the post will have to automatically send a new version of both the post and all comments on the post, with comment permission revoked, around to all participants in the conversation as well as to everywhere that e.g. some Mastodon user has boosted one of the comments.
Either that, or a comment control FEP will have to include temporary comment permissions, and Mastodon and everything else will have to support them. I'm pretty sure that Mastodon users would love this feature, and they'd applaud Eugen Rochko for "inventing" it and "introducing it to the Fediverse". But (streams) and Forte certainly won't remove this feature just because the FEP don't support it.
As for how Hubzilla, (streams) and Forte handle this right now, AFAIK, they only advertise their comment permissions amongst each other. This means that if permission to comment is not granted, the comment button is removed from the UI. Not even greyed out, actually removed.
Towards the wider Fediverse, they act differently: They're fully aware that they can't keep a Mastodon account from commenting. Instead, they reject a comment that isn't allowed. And rejecting works differently on these three than on Mastodon: Rejected content is not first let into the inbox, then filtered and then deleted. It isn't let into the inbox in the first place. And if an activity has only got one possible recipient on a server, and that recipient doesn't allow that activity, the whole server rejects it.
The reason why this works for comment control is because conversations themselves work differently on these three (and Friendica) than on Mastodon: On Mastodon, replies go to a) whoever is mentioned and b) whoever follows the replier. On Friendica, Hubzilla, (streams) and Forte, comments always go straight to the conversation starter, even if they're comments on a comment on a comment on a comment, and from there to all participants in the thread. Of course, Mastodon users won't notice new comments until they're mentioned in the metadata.
Now, if the conversation starter rejects a comment that has actually been sent, the comment is not added to the conversation. This means two things: One, on the conversation starter's own stream, the comment does not appear as part of the conversation. Two, the comment is not forwarded to the other participants in the thread either.
From a Mastodon POV, this means that you may be able to see the branch of the conversation in which you've participated with your rejected comment in it on your own server. But if you go check the whole thread at its source, you will not see your rejected comment in the conversation.
A side-effect of this is that it isn't possible to reply to rejected comments either. Let's suppose you see some toot in your timeline. It's a comment on some (streams) post. What the commenter is blissfully unaware of: They aren't permitted to comment on this post. (streams) has rejected the comment. But you are amongst the lucky few who are permitted to comment.
Still, you can't reply to that one comment.
If a comment is rejected, then all replies to this comment are rejected, too, regardless of permissions. That's because they cannot be attached to the conversation because their own parent is missing. From your Mastodon POV, you will be able to reply. But your reply will never become part of the conversation.
This would all be a whole lot better if the entire Fediverse supported a) enclosed threaded conversations (as opposed to Twitter-like posts-and-more-posts piecemeal) and b) permissions, including comment control all the way to temporary comment permission.
# # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # Maybe it'd make sense to get the devs aboard, and for Hubzilla and for (streams) and Forte. And I think there's a new place being worked on where Fediverse devs can meet in the Fediverse itself, but I don't have any more details right now.
I can see four things becoming tricky when it comes to comment control. One is if it isn't enough to add support for another implementation, and if either side actually had to change the way it handles permission in a way that isn't backwards-compatible.
The second one is that Hubzilla, (streams) and Forte don't simply allow or forbid comments, but they can allow only certain actors to comment, and be it all contacts of a channel. I don't know if GTS has that feature, or if it can support it.
The third one is that (streams) and Forte can limit the time in which a post can be commented. Channels can be configured so that comments are only allowed for a certain timespan, and individual posts can be configured so that they can only be commented on until a certain point in the future.
Now, the thing is that, much unlike all the many microblogging applications, the permissions in a conversation are always the same on (streams) and Forte (and also on Hubzilla). All comments, regardless of whether they come from (streams) or Mastodon or Lemmy or wherever, always have the same permissions as the post. Replying to a public conversation with a DM is not supported, for example the DM will be regarded as a public comment.
This also means that you're only allowed to reply to a comment in a thread if you're also allowed to comment on the post itself. But if you're allowed to comment on the post, you're also allowed to reply to any comment in the conversation, full stop.
Speaking in "non-nomadic, no-enclosed-conversations ActivityPub" terms, this means that at a certain point after a post was sent, the owner of the post will have to automatically send a new version of both the post and all comments on the post, with comment permission revoked, around to all participants in the conversation as well as to everywhere that e.g. some Mastodon user has boosted one of the comments.
Either that, or a comment control FEP will have to include temporary comment permissions, and Mastodon and everything else will have to support them. I'm pretty sure that Mastodon users would love this feature, and they'd applaud Eugen Rochko for "inventing" it and "introducing it to the Fediverse". But (streams) and Forte certainly won't remove this feature just because the FEP don't support it.
As for how Hubzilla, (streams) and Forte handle this right now, AFAIK, they only advertise their comment permissions amongst each other. This means that if permission to comment is not granted, the comment button is removed from the UI. Not even greyed out, actually removed.
Towards the wider Fediverse, they act differently: They're fully aware that they can't keep a Mastodon account from commenting. Instead, they reject a comment that isn't allowed. And rejecting works differently on these three than on Mastodon: Rejected content is not first let into the inbox, then filtered and then deleted. It isn't let into the inbox in the first place. And if an activity has only got one possible recipient on a server, and that recipient doesn't allow that activity, the whole server rejects it.
The reason why this works for comment control is because conversations themselves work differently on these three (and Friendica) than on Mastodon: On Mastodon, replies go to a) whoever is mentioned and b) whoever follows the replier. On Friendica, Hubzilla, (streams) and Forte, comments always go straight to the conversation starter, even if they're comments on a comment on a comment on a comment, and from there to all participants in the thread. Of course, Mastodon users won't notice new comments until they're mentioned in the metadata.
Now, if the conversation starter rejects a comment that has actually been sent, the comment is not added to the conversation. This means two things: One, on the conversation starter's own stream, the comment does not appear as part of the conversation. Two, the comment is not forwarded to the other participants in the thread either.
From a Mastodon POV, this means that you may be able to see the branch of the conversation in which you've participated with your rejected comment in it on your own server. But if you go check the whole thread at its source, you will not see your rejected comment in the conversation.
A side-effect of this is that it isn't possible to reply to rejected comments either. Let's suppose you see some toot in your timeline. It's a comment on some (streams) post. What the commenter is blissfully unaware of: They aren't permitted to comment on this post. (streams) has rejected the comment. But you are amongst the lucky few who are permitted to comment.
Still, you can't reply to that one comment.
If a comment is rejected, then all replies to this comment are rejected, too, regardless of permissions. That's because they cannot be attached to the conversation because their own parent is missing. From your Mastodon POV, you will be able to reply. But your reply will never become part of the conversation.
This would all be a whole lot better if the entire Fediverse supported a) enclosed threaded conversations (as opposed to Twitter-like posts-and-more-posts piecemeal) and b) permissions, including comment control all the way to temporary comment permission.
# # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # Wahrscheinlich auch ein Grund, warum (streams) und Forte so sind, wie sie sind:
Bei (streams) hat Mike nodeinfo mit Absicht komplett rausgeschmissen. Forte hat wieder nodeinfo, weil das laut Mike in einem mastodondominierten Fediverse zwingend notwendig ist. Aber Forte meldet alle Statistikwerte als 0. Auch da kann man von Absicht ausgehen.
Whrend also Hubzilla die Statistiken mit nomadischen Kanlen verzerrt, weil jeder Klon als eigenes Konto aufgefat wird, gleichzeitig aber auch jeder einzelne Kanal auf demselben Konto wiederum als eigenes Konto gezhlt wird (Hubzilla meldet ja zum Glck nicht die Zahl der Konten, sondern die Zahl der Kanle), tauchen (streams) und Forte in den Statistiken berhaupt nicht auf.
Interessanterweise meldet Forte auch keine Versionsnummern per nodeinfo, sondern nur auf Wegen, die nur von Mikes eigener Software verstanden werden. So kann man zwar auf Community-Listen auf (streams) und Forte die Versionsnummern einzelner Server sehen, aber Crawler, die auf ActivityPub und Mastodon ausgelegt sind, erfahren die Versionsnummern nicht.
Dazu kommt, da (streams) ohne nodeinfo nicht crawlbar ist. Selbst wenn es nodeinfo htte, wre es nicht crawlbar, weil es als einzige Fediverse-Software keinen festen, einheitlichen Softwarenamen hat. Und so ist (streams) vom Fediverse Observer und vom FediIndex komplett abwesend. Die FediDB, auf der Daniel jede Software per Hand eintrgt, kennt nicht nur (streams) nicht, sondern auch Forte.
Zugegeben, statistische Signifikanz frs Fediverse als Ganzes haben die beiden nicht. (streams) drfte keine 50 aktiven Nutzer haben, Forte keine 20, die sich samt und sonders aus den (streams)-Reihen rekrutiert haben drften. Und Forte hat nur Privatserver, aber keinen einzigen ffentlichen mit offener Registrierung, whrend (streams) zumindest davon zwei hat, die aber nur Insider kennen.
CC:
# # # # # # # # # # # # In the background, yes.
At first, I expected this implementation to be exactly like Misskey and require this line in plain sight in the content so that the quoted post is rendered dynamically. Which has never been the case in Mike's software family.
# # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # In the background, yes.
At first, I expected this implementation to be exactly like Misskey and require this line in plain sight in the content so that the quoted post is rendered dynamically. Which has never been the case in Mike's software family.
# # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # Der FediIndex ist auch nicht verllicher. Die Angaben von Misskey und GoToSocial ber monatlich aktive Nutzer sind nmlich so verquer, die sind fr das Fediverse-Gesamtbild komplett fr die Fe, also zhlt der FediIndex sie einfach nicht mit dazu.
Aber im Gegensatz zu den Nomaden auf Hubzilla, (streams) und Forte kann man die zahllosen Misskey-Nutzer in Ostasien nicht einfach so als Rundungsfehler unter den Teppich kehren. Und ich glaube, die auch nicht wenigen GTS-Selbsthoster haben inzwischen auch statistische Signifikanz, vor allem bei den Einzelnutzerinstanzen.
# # # # # # # # # # # #
I don't know if translating the absence of a FEP-044f quote policy as not quotable was the right decision. Maybe it wasn't.

If you use server software that has quote-posts implemented with no quote policy, I think it's rather safe to assume that you're okay with being quote-posted.
I mean, if you're on Misskey, complaining about being quote-posted is like complaining about emoji reactions, MFM shenanigans or the overall genki feeling. Misskey is not Mastodon with 3,000 characters deal with it. And I haven't even mentioned "Speak as Cat" yet that's popular around the Forkeys.
You might have seen my comment in the forum thread on a way to make it easier for platforms like Friendica to signal a free-for-all quoting permission.

I was just about to say that this goes doubly for those server applications where quote-posts are an integral part of the communication culture.
Seriously, if you're on one of these, but you don't want anyone to quote-post you, and you still insist in always posting in public, you're doing something wrong. And just as seriously, unlike Mastodon, especially the Friendica/Hubzilla/(streams)/Forte family won't mollycoddle you. If you come to stay, we expect you to know what you're doing and why.
# # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #
I don't know if translating the absence of a FEP-044f quote policy as not quotable was the right decision. Maybe it wasn't.

If you use server software that has quote-posts implemented with no quote policy, I think it's rather safe to assume that you're okay with being quote-posted.
I mean, if you're on Misskey, complaining about being quote-posted is like complaining about emoji reactions, MFM shenanigans or the overall genki feeling. Misskey is not Mastodon with 3,000 characters deal with it. And I haven't even mentioned "Speak as Cat" yet that's popular around the Forkeys.
You might have seen my comment in the forum thread on a way to make it easier for platforms like Friendica to signal a free-for-all quoting permission.

I was just about to say that this goes doubly for those server applications where quote-posts are an integral part of the communication culture.
Seriously, if you're on one of these, but you don't want anyone to quote-post you, and you still insist in always posting in public, you're doing something wrong. And just as seriously, unlike Mastodon, especially the Friendica/Hubzilla/(streams)/Forte family won't mollycoddle you. If you come to stay, we expect you to know what you're doing and why.
# # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # I'm surprised to read that (streams) allegedly has FEP-e232 implemented. As I happen to have two (streams) channels myself, and as (streams) allows me to have a look at the whole source code of any activity (whereas Hubzilla only shows me that of the content), I've checked a fairly recent post of mine that includes a link. And while it does define the hashtags just like Mastodon and Hubzilla, it does not define links in a way that conforms to FEP-e232. Either that, or (streams)' implementation of FEP-e232 is newer than the software was when I sent that post.

Next, I wanted to see if (streams) had its way of quote-posting changed in the last seven years or so of development and forking. I expected it to quote-post like Hubzilla, namely by turning a BBcode short code into a dumb copy of the original upon sending, but I wanted to see proof. As (streams) is a fork of a fork of three forks of a fork (of a fork) of Hubzilla that's still maintained by Hubzilla's own creator, I would have been surprised if he had changed the way (streams) quote-posts at some point on the way.
So I quote-posted my own post on (streams) just to see what happens. And (streams) acted exactly like Hubzilla and not at all like described in FEP-044f on the surface. It still inserts a dumb copy.
Good thing I have access to the full source code of any message on (streams). So here's what happened, namely what I expected to happen: (streams) quote-posts like Hubzilla.
First of all, when I clicked the "Share" button, this short code was inserted into the post editor:
share=1198713/share
The number, by the way, is the running number of the message to quote-post on the server.
Upon sending the post, (streams) automatically "expanded" the short code into the dumb copy I had expected.
share author='Jupiter+Rowland' profile='https://hub.netzgemeinde.eu/channel/jupiterrowland' portableid='moYLN61-o3FbP3jyThygMDf-bjF2cApXgkrwlAE77iKy19xM16F06V4b71eTkqqNaTUjGiN0lfw2dyn5nXRw' avatar='https://streams.elsmussols.net/xp/6b50efa4bb804860f6128bba791b74fab4a0a5e09dbcbee8d8ca77cee00f0330-6' link='https://hub.netzgemeinde.eu/item/0a1cdda5-eb1c-4a33-9574-ddd896977b4f' auth='true' posted='2025-09-21 19:42:56' messageid='https://hub.netzgemeinde.eu/item/0a1cdda5-eb1c-4a33-9574-ddd896977b4f' ...(the source code of the original message goes here)... /share
Both Hubzilla and (streams) render this the same way, namely with a header line above the copy that includes the profile picture of the original author, the name of the original author with a Zot/Nomad-type link to their channel/account and a Zot/Nomad-type link to the original of the post ("Zot/Nomad-type" means that zrl/zrl is used rather than url/url which means that the ID of an observer on Hubzilla/(streams)/Forte is attached to the link for OpenWebAuth identity recognition purposes.)
At the same time, curiously, (streams) includes the line "rel": "https://misskey-hub.net/ns#misskeyquote" and a line that starts with "name": "RE: and continues with the URL of the original message into the code for the link to the original message. The latter is identical to what Misskey and all Forkeys have in quote-posting notes in plain sight, only that (streams) only reveals it in the source code rather than in the content as well.
So this part of FEP-044f is implemented, albeit concealed from most people and only happening in the code.

Now, looking at the quote policy part, that looks like it could be possible to add to the Fediverse's permission champions Hubzilla, (streams) and Forte. After all, they already have comment controls with no FEP backing it (and if GoToSocial's quote policy can be made into an FEP, maybe so can (streams)' and Forte's comment controls so that they actually do blank out reply buttons on the farther ends of the Fediverse if the software on the farther ends implement support for that FEP).
This could be done at three levels again. I'll illustrate this with (streams) and Forte because they're quite a bit less complex than older Hubzilla.
At channel level, quote-posting (and maybe quoting as well) could be set as usually, namely to semi-public (= everyone in the Fediverse = no quote policy), restricted (= only your contacts) and only yourself. (Seriously, you don't want random passersby with no accounts to quote-post you. Even though you can allow them to comment on your posts if you dare.)
"Only yourself" could be overridden at contact level by permitting certain contacts to quote-post (and maybe quote) your messages. This is actually standard behaviour on (streams) and Forte.
And then there is the per-post level which would be similar to (streams)' and Forte's comment controls. These allow you to limit who may comment on a post to only your contacts and those who have already participated in the same conversation, and they allow you to turn off comments altogether.
Quote authorisation would not be much different in handling from manually moderating comments from those who technically aren't permitted to comment (only that spammers don't quote-post, at least not yet, and they probably never will because that simply makes no sense). So that'd be nothing really new.
Of course, this would have some limitations which come from how Hubzilla, (streams) and Forte work and from their conversation architecture.
The first limitation is that you could only give certain contacts permission to quote-post your posts if you didn't give it to the whole Fediverse. Channel-wide permissions are always inherited by contact-specific permissions, and this cannot be overridden. So you couldn't generally allow everyone to quote-post your posts except for one certain contact of yours.
The second limitation is that you can only control the permissions of contacts, but not of non-contacts. So you can't disallow some stranger whom you aren't connected to to quote-post your posts while everyone else is allowed.
Then again, FEP-044f doesn't make either of these two possible either. It can only define who is permitted to quote-post a post, not who isn't.
The third limitation is that, on Hubzilla, (streams) and Forte, comments always have the same permissions as the post that they belong to because comments always have the same owner as the post that they belong to. Basically, if FEP-044f was to be defined for each comment individually, it would have a chance of clashing with conversation containers as per FEP-171b.
Here on Hubzilla, as well as from (streams)' point of view, everyone's comments in this thread are owned by me because I've started the thread. And the permissions on all these comments are defined by my post. I've seen my share of permission clashes whenever someone on Mastodon replied to a public post or a public comment with a DM, and Hubzilla overrode this by forcing the permissions of the post on that reply.
In practice, this means that the quote policies of all comments would be the same as that of the post. At least that's how Hubzilla, (streams) and Forte would understand them because the concept of comments having different permissions than the post is alien to them. So if you say that I'm not permitted to quote-post your comment, but I say that anyone can quote-post my post, Hubzilla and (streams) override the quote policy that you've given your comment on Mastodon with the quote policy that I've given my post on Hubzilla, and I can quote-post you.
So the actually difficult part would be to implement an exception in how Hubzilla, (streams) and Forte handle comment permissions for quote policies and make them individual for each comment rather than making comments inherit them from the post.
Well, and lastly, if you permitted all your contacts to quote-post a post of yours, and you had a few more contacts, the "canQuote" section would end up monstrous. (A bit less so if you could cherry-pick those who are allowed to quote-post you on a per-post base, just like you can cherry-pick those who are allowed to see the post in the first place.) Also, I'm wondering just how well policies as per FEP-044f (and their implementations in various server applications) will work with DIDs as per FEP-ef61 which (streams) and Forte use, and I guess, so does Mitra now.
# # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # I'm surprised to read that (streams) allegedly has FEP-e232 implemented. As I happen to have two (streams) channels myself, and as (streams) allows me to have a look at the whole source code of any activity (whereas Hubzilla only shows me that of the content), I've checked a fairly recent post of mine that includes a link. And while it does define the hashtags just like Mastodon and Hubzilla, it does not define links in a way that conforms to FEP-e232. Either that, or (streams)' implementation of FEP-e232 is newer than the software was when I sent that post.

Next, I wanted to see if (streams) had its way of quote-posting changed in the last seven years or so of development and forking. I expected it to quote-post like Hubzilla, namely by turning a BBcode short code into a dumb copy of the original upon sending, but I wanted to see proof. As (streams) is a fork of a fork of three forks of a fork (of a fork) of Hubzilla that's still maintained by Hubzilla's own creator, I would have been surprised if he had changed the way (streams) quote-posts at some point on the way.
So I quote-posted my own post on (streams) just to see what happens. And (streams) acted exactly like Hubzilla and not at all like described in FEP-044f on the surface. It still inserts a dumb copy.
Good thing I have access to the full source code of any message on (streams). So here's what happened, namely what I expected to happen: (streams) quote-posts like Hubzilla.
First of all, when I clicked the "Share" button, this short code was inserted into the post editor:
share=1198713/share
The number, by the way, is the running number of the message to quote-post on the server.
Upon sending the post, (streams) automatically "expanded" the short code into the dumb copy I had expected.
share author='Jupiter+Rowland' profile='https://hub.netzgemeinde.eu/channel/jupiterrowland' portableid='moYLN61-o3FbP3jyThygMDf-bjF2cApXgkrwlAE77iKy19xM16F06V4b71eTkqqNaTUjGiN0lfw2dyn5nXRw' avatar='https://streams.elsmussols.net/xp/6b50efa4bb804860f6128bba791b74fab4a0a5e09dbcbee8d8ca77cee00f0330-6' link='https://hub.netzgemeinde.eu/item/0a1cdda5-eb1c-4a33-9574-ddd896977b4f' auth='true' posted='2025-09-21 19:42:56' messageid='https://hub.netzgemeinde.eu/item/0a1cdda5-eb1c-4a33-9574-ddd896977b4f' ...(the source code of the original message goes here)... /share
Both Hubzilla and (streams) render this the same way, namely with a header line above the copy that includes the profile picture of the original author, the name of the original author with a Zot/Nomad-type link to their channel/account and a Zot/Nomad-type link to the original of the post ("Zot/Nomad-type" means that zrl/zrl is used rather than url/url which means that the ID of an observer on Hubzilla/(streams)/Forte is attached to the link for OpenWebAuth identity recognition purposes.)
At the same time, curiously, (streams) includes the line "rel": "https://misskey-hub.net/ns#misskeyquote" and a line that starts with "name": "RE: and continues with the URL of the original message into the code for the link to the original message. The latter is identical to what Misskey and all Forkeys have in quote-posting notes in plain sight, only that (streams) only reveals it in the source code rather than in the content as well.
So this part of FEP-044f is implemented, albeit concealed from most people and only happening in the code.

Now, looking at the quote policy part, that looks like it could be possible to add to the Fediverse's permission champions Hubzilla, (streams) and Forte. After all, they already have comment controls with no FEP backing it (and if GoToSocial's quote policy can be made into an FEP, maybe so can (streams)' and Forte's comment controls so that they actually do blank out reply buttons on the farther ends of the Fediverse if the software on the farther ends implement support for that FEP).
This could be done at three levels again. I'll illustrate this with (streams) and Forte because they're quite a bit less complex than older Hubzilla.
At channel level, quote-posting (and maybe quoting as well) could be set as usually, namely to semi-public (= everyone in the Fediverse = no quote policy), restricted (= only your contacts) and only yourself. (Seriously, you don't want random passersby with no accounts to quote-post you. Even though you can allow them to comment on your posts if you dare.)
"Only yourself" could be overridden at contact level by permitting certain contacts to quote-post (and maybe quote) your messages. This is actually standard behaviour on (streams) and Forte.
And then there is the per-post level which would be similar to (streams)' and Forte's comment controls. These allow you to limit who may comment on a post to only your contacts and those who have already participated in the same conversation, and they allow you to turn off comments altogether.
Quote authorisation would not be much different in handling from manually moderating comments from those who technically aren't permitted to comment (only that spammers don't quote-post, at least not yet, and they probably never will because that simply makes no sense). So that'd be nothing really new.
Of course, this would have some limitations which come from how Hubzilla, (streams) and Forte work and from their conversation architecture.
The first limitation is that you could only give certain contacts permission to quote-post your posts if you didn't give it to the whole Fediverse. Channel-wide permissions are always inherited by contact-specific permissions, and this cannot be overridden. So you couldn't generally allow everyone to quote-post your posts except for one certain contact of yours.
The second limitation is that you can only control the permissions of contacts, but not of non-contacts. So you can't disallow some stranger whom you aren't connected to to quote-post your posts while everyone else is allowed.
Then again, FEP-044f doesn't make either of these two possible either. It can only define who is permitted to quote-post a post, not who isn't.
The third limitation is that, on Hubzilla, (streams) and Forte, comments always have the same permissions as the post that they belong to because comments always have the same owner as the post that they belong to. Basically, if FEP-044f was to be defined for each comment individually, it would have a chance of clashing with conversation containers as per FEP-171b.
Here on Hubzilla, as well as from (streams)' point of view, everyone's comments in this thread are owned by me because I've started the thread. And the permissions on all these comments are defined by my post. I've seen my share of permission clashes whenever someone on Mastodon replied to a public post or a public comment with a DM, and Hubzilla overrode this by forcing the permissions of the post on that reply.
In practice, this means that the quote policies of all comments would be the same as that of the post. At least that's how Hubzilla, (streams) and Forte would understand them because the concept of comments having different permissions than the post is alien to them. So if you say that I'm not permitted to quote-post your comment, but I say that anyone can quote-post my post, Hubzilla and (streams) override the quote policy that you've given your comment on Mastodon with the quote policy that I've given my post on Hubzilla, and I can quote-post you.
So the actually difficult part would be to implement an exception in how Hubzilla, (streams) and Forte handle comment permissions for quote policies and make them individual for each comment rather than making comments inherit them from the post.
Well, and lastly, if you permitted all your contacts to quote-post a post of yours, and you had a few more contacts, the "canQuote" section would end up monstrous. (A bit less so if you could cherry-pick those who are allowed to quote-post you on a per-post base, just like you can cherry-pick those who are allowed to see the post in the first place.) Also, I'm wondering just how well policies as per FEP-044f (and their implementations in various server applications) will work with DIDs as per FEP-ef61 which (streams) and Forte use, and I guess, so does Mitra now.
# # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # Ich habe es oben geschrieben: So ein System ist fediverseweit gar nicht mglich. Es ist technisch nicht realisierbar.
Was Mastodon da gebaut hat, funktioniert nur innerhalb von Mastodon. Ich habe es ja oben erklrt:

Das liegt daran, da Mastodon mal wieder mit voller Absicht das Rad neu erfunden hat.
Sie htten die Art des Quote-Postens bernehmen knnen, die Misskey schon lange hat und die auch Threads verwendet. Sie htten die Art des Quote-Postens bernehmen knnen, die Friendica seit ber 15 Jahren erfolgreich einsetzt. Nein, statt dessen hat Mastodon eine eigene, proprietre Technik entwickelt und sich mit vollem Vorsatz zum Rest des Fediverse noch inkompatibler gemacht.
Aber noch einmal: Mike Macgirvin sagt, es ist technisch nicht mglich, Quote-Posts von ffentlichen Posts zu verhindern. Und noch einmal: Der Mann mu es wissen.
Mike entwickelt schon seit fast einem halben Jahrhundert Software. Er ist Profi. Er war mal bezahlter Profi. Mike hat Friendica rausgehauen, da ging Eugen Rochko noch zur Schule.
Mike hat mehr Fediverse-Serveranwendungen entwickelt als jeder andere da drauen. Jede einzelne davon ist von den Features her leistungsfhiger als alles andere, was es im Fediverse gibt. Mike hat im Alleingang sogar mehr Fediverse-Protokolle entwickelt als jeder andere da drauen. Mike hat nomadische Identitt im Alleingang erfunden, und sie funktioniert seit 2012.
Und Mike hat in puncto Sicherheit und Berechtigungssteuerung weit mehr gemacht als jeder andere Fediverse-Entwickler. Das, was er entwickelt hat, ist in seiner Funktionalitt auch nicht eingeschrnkt auf die eigene Software, sondern er hat sich immer auch Gedanken darber gemacht, wie es auerhalb funktioniert, whrend fr Eugen Rochko alles auerhalb von Mastodon Feindesland ist, das ignoriert wird und totgeschwiegen gehrt.
Ganz ehrlich: Was vor allem Hubzilla und (streams) und Forte knnen in puncto Berechtigungssteuerung, das ist fr die meisten Mastodon-Nutzer vollkommen unvorstellbar. Es gibt Berechtigungseinstellungen auf bis zu drei Ebenen (ganzer Kanal, einzelne Kontakte, pro Post/Thread) fr fast alles bis hin zu Features, die Mastodon gar nicht hat.
Nur fr Quote-Posts gibt's keine. Weil das fediverseweit nicht mglich ist.
Wenn es ffentlich ist und jeder es sehen kann, dann kann es auch jeder quote-posten. Das geht schlicht und ergreifend nicht zu verhindern. Nicht mal innerhalb von Hubzilla und (streams) und Forte. Auerhalb schon mal erst recht nicht.
Innerhalb von Mastodon geht's nur aus zwei Grnden. Zum einen, weil Mastodon den ganzen Rest des Fediverse bestenfalls komplett ignoriert. Zum anderen, weil Mastodon-Nutzer zwingend fr jeden Pups auf GUI-Knpfchen angewiesen sind. Sie sind es nicht gewohnt, irgendwas in ihren Trts per Hand zu formatieren, weil sie noch nie irgendwas haben formatieren knnen. Und weil gefhlt beinahe jeder nur ein Smartphone und eine dedizierte Mastodon-App verwendet und kein Copy-Paste kennt, ist das Quote-Post-GUI-Knpfchen das einzige, was sie haben, abgesehen von Screenshots.
Aber schon Mastodons Methode funktioniert, wie ich oben schon schrieb, nicht ber Mastodon hinaus. Und da kann Mastodon lange drauf warten, da der Rest des Fediverse seine eigene jahrelang etablierte Technologie wegschmeit und auf Mastodons proprietre Technologie umschwenkt.
Auf Misskey, den Forkeys und allen anderen, die auf dieselbe Art quote-posten, ist Quote-Posten berhaupt nicht verhinderbar. Das liegt daran, da Quote-Posts pupeinfach als Link auf den Originalbeitrag ausgefhrt sind mit "RE:" davor. RE: https://domain.tld/AdressedesOriginalbeitrags Zack, hast du einen Quote-Post. Und mal ehrlich, fr sowas braucht man kein GUI-Knpfchen, wenn man tippen und URLs copy-pasten kann.
Auch auf Friendica, Hubzilla, (streams) und Forte, die ganz anders quote-posten, ist Quote-Posten ffentlicher Beitrge nicht verhinderbar. Da nutzen die Leute keine Apps auf Smartphones. Nein, die meisten sitzen am Desktop-PC oder Laptop mit Hardwaretastatur und nutzen einen Standardbrowser statt einer dedizierten App. Copy-Paste ist fr sie kein Problem und schon gar kein Fremdwort. Auerdem sind vor allem die alten Hasen es hchstwahrscheinlich meistens gewohnt, Markup-Code fr Formatierungen per Hand einzutippen, statt sich auf die GUI-Knpfchen zu verlassen, die auch nur BBcode-Stckchen in den Editor reinpflanzen.
Mike Macgirvin sagt: Es gibt genau eine Art und Weise, wirksam fediverseweit zu verhindern, da du gequote-postet wirst. Und das ist, nicht ffentlich zu posten.
Fr jemanden fr ihn ist es aber auch einfach, das zu sagen. Gerade auf Hubzilla, (streams) und Forte gibt es etliche Abstufungen zwischen ffentlich und DM. Auf Hubzilla kann ich einen Post
versenden.
Und der Witz ist: Das steuert nicht nur, an wen der Post geht. Das steuert auch, wer den Post (und smtliche Kommentare zum Post) sehen darf. Wenn der Post nicht an dich geht, wirst du ihn nie zu Gesicht bekommen. Nein, auch nicht per Boost. Das ist nmlich bei nichtffentlichen Posts explizit verboten, und das dafr ntige Bedienelement ist schlicht und ergreifend nicht da.
Es wird noch besser: Das funktioniert sogar bis nach Mastodon. Denn wenn es nicht ffentlich ist, dann stellt es sich Mastodon gegenber als DM dar.
Ich setze noch einen drauf: Im krassen Gegensatz zum restlichen Fediverse posten Hubzilla, (streams) und Forte mit Standardeinstellungen nicht ffentlich. Alle drei haben standardmig schon eine Privacy Group/Zugriffsliste namens "Freunde", in der alle neuen Kontakte landen. Und alle drei posten standardmig nur zu dieser Privacy Group/Zugriffsliste namens "Freunde". Aus Mastodon-Sicht verschicken alle drei standardmig immer nur DMs. Wenn du ffentlich posten willst, ist das Extraaufwand.
So gehen Sicherheit und Privatsphre. Und nicht mit proprietrem, zu nichts anderem kompatiblem Hokuspokus fr Doofe wie auf Mastodon.
# # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #Okay, everyone, sit down. I'll tell you a few things about Mastodon's quote-post feature that you know nothing about. Definitely not if all you know is Mastodon. Oh, and by the way, in case you don't know yet in spite of following me: The Fediverse is not only Mastodon.

Mastodon has been quote-post-able for as long as it has been around


Eugen Rochko is bringing quote-posts to Mastodon. But he is not bringing quote-posts to the Fediverse. The Fediverse has had quote-posts for 15 years.
It was Mike Macgirvin who introduced quote-posts to the Fediverse in July, 2010, when he launched something called Mistpark back then and Friendica today (, ). That was five and a half years before Mastodon was launched.
In fact, when Mastodon was launched, it immediately federated itself with Friendica and with Hubzilla, a fork of a fork of Friendica by Friendica's own creator which has quote-posts, too. So when Mastodon was launched, it immediately became possible to quote-post Mastodon toots. Not on Mastodon itself, but on Friendica and Hubzilla.

Just about everything that isn't Mastodon has already got quote-posts right now


Here are a few (but not even all) Fediverse server applications that already have quote-posts:

And they're all part of the Fediverse which means that they're all connected to Mastodon. People on all of these can theoretically read your Mastodon toots. And people on all of these can theoretically quote-post your Mastodon toots.

Mastodon's quote-post opt-in is not a water-tight defence against being quote-posted


So you can choose not to be quote-posted. But you can only choose not to be quote-posted by Mastodon users. This opt-in does not work with the rest of the Fediverse.
First of all, that's because Mastodon's quote-post feature is not compatible with anything else out there. Mastodon's developers have chosen to re-invent the quote-posting wheel from scratch. They've intentionally chosen to do so in a way that's completely incompatible with everything else out there.
Their intention was to reinforce Mastodon's appearance to its own users as the one and only Fediverse and ActivityPub gold standard and to make Pleroma, Akkoma, Misskey, Firefish, Iceshrimp, Sharkey, CherryPick, Catodon, Mitra, Friendica, Hubzilla, (streams), Forte etc. look broken. It's part of their plan to keep Mastodon users on Mastodon in the wake of Mastodon's market share in the Fediverse shrinking.
Also, they did not publish any specifications on their quote-post implementation, so even those non-Mastodon developers who are fast enough didn't have a chance to implement support for Mastodon's opt-in.
This means that even if you've set your posts to un-quote-post-able on Mastodon, everything I've listed above can still quote-post you with no resistance.

Absolute Fediverse-wide protection against being quote-posted is impossible


And don't get your hopes high that the day will come when nobody on the Fediverse will be able to quote-post you, whether they're on Mastodon or not. Such a setting is technologically impossible.
Who says that Mike Macgirvin says that. The guy who launched Friendica and brought quote-posts to the Fediverse 15 years ago, remember This guy has built the Fediverse's most elaborate, most complex, most fine-grained, most advanced permissions system into (streams) and Forte.
These two have reply control, the kind of which you couldn't image in your wildest dreams. I'm serious. They have permissions settings for almost everything on two or three levels, for your whole channel, individually per contact and sometimes even per post or per file or folder in the file storage.
But they don't have quote-post permission settings. Because that's impossible to enforce Fediverse-wide. And even if it was possible, it'd be pointless. If they can't quote-post you, they'll copy-paste you. If they can't copy-paste you either because they're on a phone, they'll post screenshots of your toots.
Mike also says, there is exactly one way to keep people from quote-posting you, and that's by not posting in public. Unfortunately, unlike what he has created, Mastodon has little between "public" and "DM", if anything.

Mastodon cannot quote-post the non-Mastodon Fediverse


This may be the big surprise: It has recently been discovered by chance that Mastodon's quote-post feature only works with Mastodon toots.
On the one hand, Pleroma, Akkoma, Misskey, Sharkey, Friendica, Hubzilla etc. can quote-post just about everything that comes in from Mastodon. But on the other hand, no Mastodon 4.5 user will be able to quote-post anything from either of these. Or from Pixelfed or PeerTube or Loops or Castopod or WriteFreely or whatever.
That's because Mastodon is looking for a quote-post opt-in. But nothing else in the Fediverse supports Mastodon's quote-post opt-in, also seeing as it's still officially in development. And it's highly unlikely that everything in the Fediverse will adopt another piece of non-standard, proprietary Mastodon tech.

"Quote" actually means something else


Lastly, Mastodon has the audacity to call this feature "quote".
A "quote" is something else. Remember forums Like, bulletin-board forums with subforums and all Where posts are quoted in follow-ups, entirely or only partially That's what a quote is. That has got nothing to do with quote-posts.
Why I say that there's a difference Because I also say that Friendica has had both quotes and quote-posts.
It has had them for 15 years, both quotes (which it calls "quotes", go figure) and quote-posts (which it calls "quoted shares", and which include the original author of the quoted post, complete with their profile picture and a clickable link to them, as well as a clickable link to the original post).
Hubzilla has both. (streams) has both. Forte has both. And I wouldn't be surprised if other Fediverse server software had both, too.
The irony is that Mastodon itself has been able to render actual quotes since version 4.0 from October, 2022. At the same time, it will continue to be unable to render any quote-posts done outside of Mastodon for the foreseeable future.
# # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # It's impossible for the US authoritarian government to put the same pressure on the Fediverse as on Bluesky and to act against the Fediverse the same as against Bluesly. For there are a few important differences.

US authoritarianism can paint the Fediverse leftist, even communist or anarchist. But there's little it can do to actually do to shut the Fediverse down.
# # # # # # # # # # # # # # # On Friendica, for example, at default settings, a post with a title is an Article-type object. Optionally, it's a Note-type object just like posts with no title and comments in general (because comments can't have titles anyway).
On (streams) and Forte, there is the option to send posts with multiple paragraphs as Article-type objects. I'm not sure how this works on comments, though.
I'm still waiting for either of the three and/or Hubzilla to introduce a per-post switch. By default, everything goes out as Note-type objects.
There are people on Mastodon who are deeply disturbed by posts that are over 500 characters long and who, at the same time, demand being coddled by the Fediverse in every way possible. Sending them as Article-type objects makes sense in this regard.
But if this is such a good idea in the case of comments over 500 characters that lack both a title and a summary...
# # # # # # # # # # # # # # #

Sexy Creampie Slut

A: i dont have a "tragic backstory." I got what i wanted as a kid! if i was hungry, i took food and I ate it! and i'm so sick of seeing people whine to their governments. to their "heroes", about needing food! you, you're hungry, why don't you take that guy's fish and eat it

B: (aghast) because he's my friend!

A: oh! i see. and what does friendship taste like does it give you a warm, full feeling in your belly does it give you strength when you've been running all day does it heal you when you're sick

B: it does, actually!

A: you know what else does that FOOD. and it does all that without calling you at 6AM to come drive it to the airport! Don't you get it Love has made you too weak to take care of yourself! You depend on society for everything! if society falls, you fall with it!

B: if society falls, it'll be because we had too many sociopaths like you!

A: so what, you're just gonna round up aaaaaall the bad apples and send them to your libraries and universities, and brainwash everyone into being a nice guy

B: It's not brainwashing, its education! We don't force them to obey!

A: You lie to them! You tell people there are "rules" and "consequences" but news flash, those rules are all fake! And if you break enough of them, you become king, and then there are no more consequences!

B: We follow the rules because if we all tried to be king then society would collapse.

A: Society would collapse anyway! It always does! And when it does, the lovers will be losers, and the winners will be kings!

C: B, I think we're gonna have to kill this guy.


AFAIK, Mitra has not rolled out full-blown nomadic identity yet (as in, no, you can't clone your Mitra identity between two Mitra servers). Even the development branch is only in a state in which it understands nomadic identity.
As for what nomadic identity is:
There are three Fediverse server applications where you're guaranteed to have solid, proven-to-work nomadic identity:

# # # # # # # # # # # # # # # I hope this reaches you.
Each of those projects cater to different audiences and has its unique strengths. I recommend to do some instance-hopping to see what works for you.
>I'm not a Twitter person
Mitra is a micro-blogging app, so the interface is similar to Twitter, but it doesn't attempt to copy it like Mastodon and Bluesky do.
# # # # # # # # # # # # # I haven't seen Mitra in action yet, so I can't say anything about it.
Hubzilla creator and (streams) and Forte maintainer, that'd be . By the way, the only one of the three that's actually ActivityPub-based is Forte. It just doesn't have any public, open-sign-up servers right now AFAIK.
Did I show you my Mastodon/Friendica/Hubzilla/(streams)/Forte comparison tables yet If not, . But lastly, you have to lay your hands on at least one of them to see how the family differs from the microblogging side of the Fediverse.
# # # # # # # # # # # # #

I feel like garbage. This covid infection put all my other illnesses into flare and my body is basically on fire right now.

The one little symptom upsetting me most is the 24/7 nausea is back. I'd gotten used to it over the 4 years, but it was gone for those miraculous 56 days and now I don't know how to ignore it anymore.

-covid

Ich schtze, sucht etwas, das Blogging-Features hat, also Titel und Textformatierung und eingebettete Bilder und sehr viel mehr Zeichen als Mastodon, das aber "nach Mastodon" posten kann.
Eine eigene Liste fr sowas gibt's nicht. Aber ich kann dir da was zusammenstellen.
Einmal gibt's reine Blogginganwendungen.
ist frs Fediverse gebaut und so hnlich wie Medium. Es kann aber keine Kommentare. Und wenn du Bilder einbetten willst, mut du die extern hosten, was eigentlich rechtlich bedeutet, da du dir von deinen Nutzern die Erlaubnis einholen mut, ihnen Inhalte von Drittservern zuzustellen.
Auf Write Freely ist auch .
ist vom Konzept her hnlich wie Write Freely. Es kann Kommentare, und es hat einen eigenen Filespace fr Bilder eingebaut. Allerdings wird es aktuell und bis auf weiteres nicht aktiv entwickelt, und seine eigenen Entwickler empfehlen statt dessen Write Freely.
Dann gibt's noch Sachen, die sich nicht auf Blogging spezialisieren, das aber "nebenher" auch knnen. Seit 15 Jahren entwickelt Mike Macgirvin Serversoftware, die im Grunde "Facebook trifft WordPress plus Extrafeatures" ist. Zu den Extrafeatures gehrt auch immer ein Filespace, und zu den Features la Facebook gehren Gruppen.
ist das "Urmodell". Das ist schon von 2010, also ber fnf Jahre lter als Mastodon. Es wird seit 2012 von zwei deutschen Entwicklern gepflegt.
ist, je nach Definition, von 2012 oder 2015, also auch lter als Mastodon. Das ist von allen am mchtigsten und am wenigsten einfach zu bedienen, vor allem, wenn man ganz andere Sachen gewohnt ist. Aber hat die eingebaute Hilfe komplett neu geschrieben, vor allem der Teil fr Nutzer ist sehr gut geworden. Hubzilla wird seit 2018 von einem deutschen und einem norwegischen Entwickler gepflegt.
Von Hubzilla schreibe ich jetzt gerade.
brigens, falls du es trotz der vielen Werbung noch nicht mitbekommen hast: Heute abend um 19.30 Uhr gibt's . Der luft in einem BigBlueButton-Raum, da kann man also im Browser teilnehmen. Falls du den verpassen solltest: Der wird auch aufgezeichnet. Aber dann kannst du hinterher keine Fragen mehr stellen.
Und dann gibt's noch von 2021 und von letztem Jahr. Die werden weiterhin von Mike Macgirvin entwickelt. Von den Features her sind sie verschlankt und wieder nher an Friendica, aber sie sind moderner als Hubzilla und auch einfacher zu handhaben.
Auf (streams) habe ich auch zwei Kanle: und .
Allerdings hat (streams) nur zwei Server mit offener Registrierung, davon nur einen in Europa (Pepe betreibt den in Ungarn), und Forte hat meines Wissens gar keine.
Was die Features von den vieren angeht:
# # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #

zstd --long

Hubzilla can probably do what you're looking for.
Wikis can be made collaborative by using the permissions system. The safe way is to only allow certain contacts to edit your wikis (you can only give permissions to edit all wikis on a channel) by making a contact role that includes that permission and assigning that contact role to those connections which shall be allowed to edit the wikis.
That said, this requires OpenWebAuth magic sign-on to work. This means that only Friendica, Hubzilla, (streams) and Forte users can edit your wikis and only locally by visiting the channel with the wikis on them. Hubzilla recognises their login via OpenWebAuth, it recognises that someone is visiting the channel who has permission to edit the wikis on the channel, and it will let that someone edit the wikis.
They cannot edit a wiki on another channel from their own channel.
Also, Hubzilla's wiki engine is nothing like MediaWiki. It uses either BBcode or Markdown for formatting with a few wiki-specific additions. Also, it lacks certain features such as categories or automatic generation of tables of content.
Making calendars collaborative takes a bigger step: To my best knowledge, it requires the permission for contacts to administer the whole channel. There is no channel-sharing feature, and there is no channel-editing permission, neither for the event calendar nor for CalDAV calendars. (Hubzilla has two fully separate calendar systems that share the same UI.)
The administration permission makes it possible for Hubzilla contacts that have this permission to edit CalDAV calendars on a channel which gave them the admin permission from their own channel. However, CalDAV calendars don't generate federated event objects, only the event calendar does, and the event calendar has to be edited locally by visiting the channel with the event calendar on it. In fact, Friendica, (streams) and Forte users can only edit calendars locally.
Again, this only works with Friendica, Hubzilla, (streams) and Forte contacts because they're the only ones with OpenWebAuth.
Friendica doesn't have wikis. And while Friendica does have an event calendar, only accounts on the same Friendica node can be given admin access so they can edit it. Friendica accounts on other nodes can't, and neither can anyone else in the Fediverse.
Lastly, there are precious few Fediverse server applications that even understand event objects. Mastodon doesn't, for example.
# # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # It's hard for me to describe other people's images. I always try to describe them like I describe mine, namely at an extremely high level of detail and, if I deem it necessary, with explanations included.
However, such descriptions can't go into alt-text for two reasons. One, explanations must never go into alt-text. Two, they're way longer than 1,500 characters.
Most of the time, I can't describe other people's images anyway. I don't know what's important to them in the image, so I feel like describing everything. If I only see the image, I can't see enough details I'm used to describing images by looking at what the image shows itself rather than at the image of what the image shows. Besides, if I don't know enough about what the image shows, I can't explain it.
I've only described an image posted by someone else twice. I can't source the actual images anymore, but I could retrieve the descriptions.
Beware: These descriptions are very old and hopelessly outdated by my current standards! They are not god examples! They may also be faulty!
The first one (almost 7,000 characters) was here:
If that link doesn't work, there's a copy of it somewhere down this thread:
The second one (almost 3,000 characters) was here:
# # # # # # # # # # #

Ruby Walshs Saturday ITV Racing best bets

Rubys giving the dual Derby winner another chance in the St Leger. Ruby Walshs Saturday Racing Tips 13:15

How Ukrainian Drones Are Crippling Russias Oil Refineries

Fire at the Afipsky refinery in Russia, August 28, 2025 Photo: Astra Ukraine is waging a campaign to
-rangedrones

I guess if a Fediverse actor uses ActivityPub, regardless of whether or not it's that actor's base protocol, that actor should count.
Still, there are various issues and open questions as has already pointed out.
Of course, one question is, where does the Fediverse end Especially if the definition of Fediverse is "Mastodon and whatever connects to it"
Hubzilla is not based on ActivityPub. Its creator (who now maintains (streams) and Forte) says it's based on Nomad whereas its maintainers insist that Hubzilla's base protocol is still named Zot. Anyway, it does support ActivityPub. However, like almost all non-nomadic protocols and connectors, ActivityPub support is an add-on that's optional and off by default on new channels. At hub level, ActivityPub is still optional, but on by default when you set up a new hub.
This can mean three things:

But if Hubzilla is not part of the Fediverse, am I even allowed to communicate with you all
(streams) is a bit different. It's based on Nomad and not on ActivityPub. But ActivityPub is part of the core and no longer an add-on, and it's on by default both at server level and at channel level. ActivityPub can still be deactivated both at channel level and at server level.
Forte is identical to (streams), except that it's based on ActivityPub, support for Nomad has been removed, it has a name, it has a brand, it's a project, it's MIT-licensed, and it has nodeinfo (which is intentionally absent from (streams)).
But these two have another "nefarious" feature plus one more that has yet to be rolled out to the release branch, both of which may put them on the edge of the Fediverse.
One, at server level, is the "Uafilter" which is short for "User Agent Filter". It can filter out entire Fediverse server applications by user agent. Its main purpose is to keep Threads out without having to enter new URLs or IP addresses into a filter all the time. However, it's not only capable of locking out the entirety of Mastodon in one fell swoop with no collateral damage, but that's also explicitly a secondary purpose.
The other one, also at server level and currently only available in dev, is "FedUp" which is short for "Federate Upstream". When activated, it only allows federation with servers that provide managed threaded conversations. In other words, it locks out all microblogging servers.
If the Fediverse is defined as "Mastodon and whatever connects to it", these two are features that'd lock at least certain (streams) and Forte servers out of the Fediverse because they are disconnected from all of Mastodon in one way or another.
# # # # # # # # # # # # # # To my best knowledge, this is a feature that only Mastodon has.
But the Fediverse is not only Mastodon. I'm not on Mastodon myself. I'm on Hubzilla which has nothing to do with Mastodon, and which has been developed independently from Mastodon since over five years before Mastodon was launched.
And while , it does not have per-post language setting.
So no, I can't set any language for my posts, comments and DMs.
CC:
# # # # # # # # # # # # #
I've had to sit through it all again, why shouldn't you

I'm so very much not going to go back through my entire Hubzilla image post log and add image descriptions to every last one of my images.
Call me ableist. Call me lazy. But I simply don't have the time and the energy. And I'd need a whole lot of time and a whole lot of energy because when I describe images, I invest more of both into describing one image than you invested into describing all images on your entire travel blog.
Each of my original images gets two descriptions: a "short" description in the alt-text (which is actually still massive even by Mastodon standards, much less by Web standards) and a "long" description in the post text which also contains all explanations necessary to understand my images as well as transcripts of all text within the borders of the image, for any definition of "text". The description in the alt-text may only contain text transcripts if they're only few and short enough.
A simple image may require a long description of 20,000-30,000 characters. A complex image may require a long description of well beyond 50,000 characters. My personal record is slightly over 60,000. If I'm also required to describe all images within my image, the long description may grow so long that the post exceeds 100,000 characters, a length at which Mastodon will reject it.
That said, if I go and add alt-texts to old posts from three years ago that are actually pretty much outdated, Mastodon won't understand it as an edit but rather as a brand-new post. I'd flood my contacts (or at least those who haven't silenced me) with old content which isn't even obviously old.
Also, if I do and alt-texts to old image posts that don't have alt-texts yet, the image description quality will decline sharply from the newest image post with freshly added image descriptions and the first image post that already had image descriptions. This means that I'd also have to go and edit and upgrade all those of my image posts that already have alt-texts so that everything is at the same level of quality. I'd have to upgrade all image posts on this channel because they're all outdated.
By the way, one of these images contains well over a dozen "persons" for any definition of "person" (actually only a handful of digital avatars and otherwise static figures), probably over 200 individual vintage album covers and a whole lot of other details. The amount of necessary visual descriptions is already staggering, but then all the necessary explanations will come on top.
I'd also have to describe images that aren't technically from me, but that are included in shares, better known as quote-posts outside of Hubzilla. (Hubzilla has had quote-posts for 13 years now, and it can theoretically quote-post anything from Mastodon toots to blog posts.) These quote-posts are only dumb copies of the originals, so I could add alt-text to images without alt-text. But for one, that'd mean to "falsify" the quoted posts because I can't add alt-text to the originals.
Besides, I can't describe the images properly anyway. See, I don't describe images by looking at the image. I describe images by looking at the real thing because the image doesn't show enough details. But I'd have to figure out where all these images in the quote-posts were made. Some of these places no longer exist, so I can't visit them for a close-enough look anymore. Ithers have changed too much, and none of them still have the same avatars in the same outfits in them as seen in the images.
Some of the images in the quote-posts are animated GIFs. That'd add an extra level of complexity in the shape of a time-coded description of what is happening in the image and when. Some images show highly complex animated art installations that even include light effects. It would take me an eternity to describe these adequately, that is, unless I fail trying.
While I'm editing these posts, I'd also have to give them proper summaries and content warnings (including "long post" when the added image descriptions inflate a post from previously only a few hundred to tens of thousands characters), bring the hashtags up to my current standards etc.
And in fact, I'd have to delete almost all image posts anyway and repost those that aren't quote-posts on my two (streams) channels, and . That's because pretty much all my old image posts contain eyes in some way, so they're eye contact triggers. But Hubzilla doesn't have any way of making certain Mastodon user interfaces hide them, not if they don't make images disappear behind content warnings as well (Mastodon before 4.4 doesn't do that either, by the way). (streams) does have such a way which is why I only use (streams) to post images nowadays, that is, if I ever get to posting new images and describing and explaining them properly.
Well, and if I deleted these old posts with their outdated or completely missing image descriptions, I'd also delete entire conversations with some very important comments in them. But if I didn't delete them and edited them, I'd trigger someone somewhere out there with eye contact.
# # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #
you don't understand several critical guidelines to ALT text as an accessibility tool.

What you fail to understand is that every last one of these "several critical guidelines to ALT text as an accessibility tool" is written for the Web and only for the Web. That they're all invalid in the Fediverse.
Alt-text wasn't introduced in the Fediverse by professional Web designers with accessibility certificates. It was introduced by complete laypeople who neither knew nor cared what WCAG is. These laypeople, and only them, built Mastodon's alt-text culture. Therefore, Mastodon's alt-text culture contradicts officially established Web accessibility standards. And here in the Fediverse, Mastodon's culture and Mastodon's standards supersede everything else. Everything else. Whether you want or not.
I've just added a new article to my wiki about this topic:
But everybody else is just going to use the advice provided to us by the experts in the field who have access to feedback from a wide range of users with a wide range of disabilities.

No.
Out there on websites and blogs, yes. But here in the Fediverse, especially on Mastodon, definitely no. And I've watched and examined Mastodon's culture for long enough to know.
Mastodon even works vastly differently from websites. All the features that you, as a Web designer, have at hand to make a website accessible by W3C standards and WCAG 2.2 guidelines, you do not have on Mastodon.
Mastodon doesn't have <figure><figcaption></figcaption></figure> for captions on embedded images that can be used to add explanations. Hell, Mastodon doesn't even support embedded images in any shape or form! And how are people supposed to add a long description or an explanation to a post if they've only got 500 characters at their disposal
This is why long alt-texts are part of Mastodon's culture and Mastodon's standards and here to stay, no matter what accessibility experts say.
And this is why Mastodon users often prefer long alt-texts over shorter ones, regardless of where a post actually came from, regardless of what possibilities that place has. In fact, many frontends still don't hide images behind content warnings. If a post is behind a content warning, the users of these frontends don't see the post, they don't see the long description in the post, they only see the image, and the only image description they're aware of is the one in the alt-text. And the one in the alt-text must already satisfy Mastodon users.
Just about everyone who describes images in the Fediverse either just wings it, or they go by Mastodon's culture and Mastodon's standards and what Mastodon likes.
Want to know what Mastodon likes in terms of alt-text Follow . Follow the # hashtag. I promise you that you won't believe your very eyes.
In all seriousness, I'd really like to see you use W3C standards and WCAG guidelines as weapons in a head-butting contest against members of Mastodon's alt-text police who refuse to boost an image post of yours because your perfectly W3C-and-WCAG-2.2-compliant, 160-character alt-text is not detailed enough by their standards, by Mastodon's standards. Bonus points if they dare to call you ableist for going against their enforcement of inclusivity.
The difference between the two of us, when it comes to image descriptions in the Fediverse is: You're book-smart because you try to apply standards to the Fediverse that don't work in the Fediverse, and you don't understand that they don't work in the Fediverse. I'm street-wise because I know what it's really like out there.
# # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #
the (expected) time investment does add a bit of friction to my brain for the getting started process

Same here. In fact, worse yet: I already estimate the time needed to describe one of my images as several hours, but it actually happens again and again that this ends up an underestimation.
, for example. I thought that it's a fairly simple motive, and I'll be done in six hours or so. It actually took me two full days to describe that image.
I've only posted new original images once since then, and . I hope to get a series of new images described before the end of the year, but I've been working on these descriptions on and off since late last year, and I think I'll have to largely rewrite the big explanation block in the common preamble to reduce the jargon to an absolute minimum and explain even more instead.
CC:
# # # # # # # # # # #
The people who complain about it - honestly how many pictures are they posting every day How many seconds of their life are they complaining about Is it less than the amount of time they spend complaining

I've once spent over 100,000 seconds, that's some 30 hours, describing one image.
Look up the hashtag # on mastodon.social and scroll all the way down. There is that post in question.
I've only sent one more post with original images since, and that was over a year ago. That post hasn't made it to mastodon.social, so .
I've spent more time describing one image than anyone has spent complaining about having to describe images. And if I don't feel like spending hours describing an image, I don't even take images, much less post them. Easy as that.
CC:
# # # # # # # # # # # # # # # First of all: They're probably useful for sighted people as well. But just like there are people who can't see your images, . Hence, explanations always go into the post text.
That said, don't worry too much about wordiness. Maybe it's justified. Maybe it's even (provided you don't have a 500-character limit, that is).
I myself see it . My most extreme example has to be . One image. Over 60,000 characters of highly detailed image description plus explanations plus text transcripts, that's over 10,000 words, enough for a screen reader to ramble for at least three hours. It took me two full days, morning to evening, to research for this image description, to look around in-world, to see all the details, to read all the bits of text, to retrieve additional information for the explanations and to write this monster.
Early the third day, I distilled an additional, 1,400-character "short" image description from it for the alt-text to , no matter how high their minimum standards were at that time. Granted, the "short" description had no room for any text transcripts, much less all of them, and there are larger elements in the image that I couldn't even mention in the alt-text, so that could be criticised. It's about 1,400 characters because I needed some room to tell people about the long description in the post itself.
Ever since I've posted this picture, I've refrained from even taking pictures with too many details and too much scenery because I'm not too keen on spending multiple days describing one image too often. But even , my last image post so far from over a year ago, ended up with over 25,000 characters worth of explanations and descriptions in the post itself plus alt-texts with "short" descriptions that are just short of 900 characters each, leaving more room to guide people to the long descriptions.
CC:
# # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #
trying to find ways to describe pictures, gifs and videos in a way that's both easy to understand but also in-depth is always a fun challenge

In my case, "easy to understand" requires "in-depth".
See, my original images go way beyond yours in terms of obscurity. I post renderings from super-obscure 3-D virtual worlds. This means that if people can't see the images, they don't have any realistic idea what anything in my images looks like. And regardless of whether or not they can see the images, they don't have the foggiest idea what it really is that's in these images and where they are from.
Still, they may be curious. After all, my images are proof that 3-D virtual worlds are, in fact, not dead, especially since the kind of worlds that I frequent has been regularly, casually using the term "metaverse" since 2007, 14 years longer than Zuckerberg.
If they're sighted, they might not care for the context. Instead, they might take in all the big and small details in the images (if there are any) and basically go explore a whole new and unknown world just by looking at one or a few images. However, "accessibility" and "inclusion" mean that blind or visually-impaired people must have the very same chance to do the very same thing. But they can't do it if I don't describe my images in all details.
And so I end up with absolutely super-massive image descriptions, including text transcripts and all necessary explanations, in my posts plus "short" but not exactly short descriptions in the alt-text of each image.
and if it helps someone at all (may it be if they use a screen reader or don't understand some parts of whatever I share) that makes it all the better for me

This is exactly why I go to such great lengths. And in fact, I've been told at least once or twice that someone actually needed an image description at this extreme level of detail, even if it took them hours to read it.
# # # # # # # # # # # # # #
Meanwhile #
& # have some groups too.

Friendica has groups. Hubzilla has groups called "forums". Both have had groups for longer than Mastodon has even been around.
(streams), a fork of a fork of three forks of a fork (of a fork) of Hubzilla created and still maintained by Friendica's and Hubzilla's own creator, has groups.
Forte, a fork of (streams) by the same developer again, has groups.
All four are in the Fediverse. All four are federated with Mastodon (Hubzilla optionally and off by default, (streams) optionally and on by default, Friendica and Forte always). By the way, this comment comes from Hubzilla.
For self-hosters: All four are written in PHP, and they require no more than a LAMP stack. But if you don't know them, e.g. if all you know in the Fediverse is Mastodon, I recommend you try them out on a public server before setting up your own one. They're all very different from Mastodon in a lot of ways. Don't just expect Mastodon with groups because that's far from what they are.

How they work


A Friendica group is an account with special settings. Likewise, a Hubzilla forum or a (streams) or Forte group is a channel with special settings.
Speaking in Mastodon terms, what they do is take incoming posts and automatically boost them to all their followers.
An exception exists on Friendica, Hubzilla, (streams) and Forte themselves: If you're there, you must send a DM to the forum/group. Public posts to a group/forum are not forwarded, only DMs are. This ensures that a group/forum doesn't forward any and all posts that happen to mention it.

FLOSS


Friendica is open-source () and under the GNU Affero GPL v3.
Hubzilla is open-source () and under the MIT license.
(streams) is open-source () and in the public domain.
Forte is open-source () and under the MIT license.

Character limits


The character limit on Friendica and Hubzilla is over 16.7 million.
The character limit on (streams) and Forte is over 24 million.
Nobody will run out of characters anytime soon, no matter from where they post. However, this also means that neither of the four has Mastodon's character-limit-induced culture of brevity.

Moderation


Friendica groups can be co-moderated/co-administrated by users on the same server as the group.
Hubzilla forums, (streams) groups and Forte groups can be co-moderated/co-administrated by anyone on Hubzilla, (streams) or Forte.
Two of the public (streams) and Forte group types allow for new content to be moderated: Any new post or comment must be manually approved by the moderators. In both cases, this is mainly for new members. Trustworthy members can be permitted to post or comment immediately.

Privacy and security


Friendica groups, Hubzilla forums, (streams) groups and Forte groups can optionally be hidden from directories and made "secret".
Friendica groups can optionally be set to private, i.e. non-members can't see the group profile, the member list or what's going on in the group.
On Hubzilla, (streams) and Forte, the profile, the member list and the stream can be reduced in visibility separately from each other. You can make the group profile public, and at the same time, you can only permit group members to see the member list and/or the stream.
Hubzilla offers eight levels of permission for seeing the forum's main profile, additional profiles that can only be seen by members/certain members, eight levels of permission for seeing the forum's member list and eight levels of permission for seeing the forum stream. One level of permission depends on individual permissions for certain members granted by contact role.
(streams) and Forte offer four group types, one of which is private, four levels of permission for seeing the group's member list and four levels of permission for seeing the group stream. The non-public levels can be overridden by granting individual permissions to certain members.
(streams) and Forte also offer the same four levels of permission plus overrides for searching the group stream.
Note: It may not be possible to join a private group/forum with an account on Mastodon or anything else that isn't one of these four. Public groups/forums can be joined by anyone (unless they're blocked, of course).

Resilience


Hubzilla, (streams) and Forte offer , i.e. the forum/group channel can exist simultaneously on multiple servers as live, hot, bidirectional backups of each other. If one server goes down, the forum/group lives on on the other server(s).
Something like this has been announced by Bluesky as a new and revolutionary technology. Bluesky has yet to deliver. Hubzilla has had this technology since 2012.
Downside: Server software that doesn't understand nomadic identity, i.e. everything except Hubzilla, (streams), Forte and at least the development branch of Mitra, sees the instances of a cloned, nomadic channel as multiple individual, independent accounts.
CC:
CC so that everyone else in this thread will read this, even if they're on Mastodon (I wouldn't have to do this if the whole Fediverse supported threaded conversations, and everyone got this automatically anyway, but I don't want to post this several times over because someone on Mastodon hasn't received it due to Mastodon's intentional, by-design limitations):
Also:
re-toot & boost my post if you find it helpful

Twitter = Retweet
Mastodon = Boost
Twitter = Like
Mastodon = Fave
# # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #

Long Reef shark attack: NSW suspends net removal plan pending review

He suffered critical injuries and died at the scene, leaving behind his wife and young daughter. Long Reef

The very definition of alt-text is that it's a written replacement for the image. It is meant to convey the relevant visual information in the image. It is not meant to convey any information not immediately available in the image.
Alt-text was not invented for Mastodon. It's way older than Mastodon. It was made for websites. And on a website, the alt-text describes what can be seen in the image, and if necessary, either a caption right below the image or the text in which the image is embedded explains the image.
The real problem is Mastodon's tiny character limit. Mastodon offers 1,500 characters in alt-text, but only a measly 500 in the actual post, minus the CW, minus mentions, minus hashtags. Thus, Mastodon's culture has pretty much declared it okay to put additional information into the alt-text and, when I mention that this is not accessible to the point of actually being ableist, blame all user interfaces that aren't the Mastodon 4.4.x Web interface.
What's even worse is that this is widely, namely all across Mastodon itself, considered the one and only Fediverse standard. And for newbies and people in Mastodon-only bubbles, this is not the Fediverse standard, this is the Fediverse because the Fediverse is only Mastodon.
For comparison: I'm not on Mastodon, not even on a fork. Hubzilla is ten months older than Mastodon, based on Friendica from the same creator which is about four and a half years older than Mastodon, and both are developed completely independently from Mastodon. When Mastodon was launched, it immediately federated with both. Their character limit is defined by the size of the database field that stores posts: over 16.7 million characters. And even beyond that, they've got lots of features which many Mastodon users wish "the Fediverse" had and even features that are completely unimaginable for Mastodon users.
In the early Fediverse, it was these two that set the quality standards. But then came Mastodon with its intentionally, painfully limited set of features and a character count which Twitter refugees considered huge, but which is actually tiny, and for which there is no technical reason. Not only did Mastodon present itself to new users as an enclosed network of its own named "Fediverse", but by doing so and quickly growing to a staggering size, it forced itself into the position of the (perceived) Fediverse gold standard.
Now we're in a situation where some 99% of all the millions of registered Mastodon users spent their first months or even years believing that the Fediverse is only Mastodon, and in fact, many still believe that. Those who learn the hard way (e.g. by having a 4,000-character comment full of text formatting dropped into their timelines) that there's much more to the Fediverse than Mastodon still think that Eugen Rochko has invented the Fediverse and ActivityPub, that Mastodon was there first, that Friendica, Hubzilla & Co. are "intruders" that were only recently created to connect to the Mastodon Fediverse, and that if something surprisingly turns out different from Mastodon in some way, it's broken.
This is also where Mastodon's culture came into play. Mastodon's culture as we know it today was completely coined in spring/summer 2022 by the February/March 2022 Twitter migration wave that was caused by Elon Musk's announcement to buy out Twitter. This migration wave was so huge that, at least within their own bubbles, these Twitter migrants hugely outnumbered the already present Mastodon users to the point of barely even noticing that Mastodon already had users, sometimes leading to the idea that Mastodon itself didn't exist before February 2022. And so there was no influence on Mastodon's culture from Mastodon veterans and even less from non-Mastodon Fediverse users who never had anything to say on Mastodon anyway.
And so Mastodon has a culture that's based on Mastodon 3.x, that doesn't even include new features from Mastodon 4.0. And this culture is being forced upon the whole rest of the Fediverse while disregarding how the rest of the Fediverse does things itself. To many, "the Fediverse" is a Twitter-cloning microblogging platform invented by Eugen Rochko with no more than 500 characters, full stop. Anything that's caught deviating from this, from Mastodon, is disturbing and wrong.
# # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #
Last updated: 2025-09-25






greenhouse gasses