Soy muy alta
If you mean that content that originated on Mastodon as opposed to appearing on Mastodon is declining, one reason may be because Mastodon's "market share" within the Fediverse is shrinking. But AFAIK, the Fediverse itself isn't.
So the activity that Mastodon has lost didn't go to Bluesky, but rather to places like Sharkey or GoToSocial or, in the cases of more daring users, even Friendica and its descendants (although I've yet to see anyone permanently move directly from Mastodon to (streams) or Forte, also because the latter inevitably requires your own server).
# # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #
During all my researches about alt-text and image descriptions, I haven't found any steadfast and definite rule for how to transcribe non-English text in an image. On the one hand, you must transcribe any and all text in an image 100% verbatim. On the other hand, you must use the same language throughout your entire image description, also because no screen reader can switch language mid-reading process, much less mid-alt-text.
Just like the existence of non-readable text in an image has never been taken into consideration, neither has the existence of non-English text in an image.
I mean, I've run into this very issue a few times myself, so I know what I'm talking about from first-hand experience.
This is also why this part of my "how to transcribe text" entry in my alt-text/image description wiki will not have a definite method for transcribing foreign-language text anytime soon.
This could easily go haywire on my two (streams) channels where I can and do use multiple-word hashtags with mid-hashtag blank spaces. Where Mastodon only supports
I could do that here as well, but then I'd have two versions of some of my hashtags, and I'd still have to supply the PascalCased versions for those who filter any of my hashtags.
# # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #
There can't be any fixed definition for that. Not here in the Fediverse.
The "Over 200 characters is too long" rule does not work in and can't be applied to the Fediverse. No, sorry, it can't. I've explained it in my (very early WIP) wiki about image descriptions and alt-text in the Fediverse: (tldr: On the Web, over 200 characters in alt-text are evil, but you've got captions, and you've got ample of other possibilities to describe an image than the alt-text. On Mastodon, you've only got the alt-text for image descriptions, and people cheer for 1,000-character alt-texts.)
Depending on a) the kind of image you post, b) the obscurity of its contents, c) your audience (including whoever might stumble upon your image post if you post in public, that's basically the whole Fediverse and everyone with Web access), d) their knowledge about what your image shows and e) their to-be-expected curiosity about what your image shows, you may have to describe your image in way more than 200 characters.
It's a rendering from within a super-obscure 3-D virtual world. Next to nobody has ever seen it, but due to this being a 3-D virtual world (= proof that "the Metaverse is surprisingly not dead"), curiosity may be high. And my impression of especially Mastodon is that people prefer being given any and all information they may need right away to having to ask. Like, ask what something specific looks like.
And so the image description in the alt-text is a bit over 1,400 characters long. And it's still very lacking. It doesn't even mention certain elements in the image. And it doesn't transcribe even only one bit of text. It's actually an extremely shortened version of the long image description in the post text itself. Over 60,000 characters of visual description and necessary explanations and text transcripts. That's over 10,000 words. That's probably over three hours of a screen reader rambling. That's two full days of me examining the place up-close, looking up additional information and writing the description. But I deemed it necessary.
If it was an absolute requirement for me to a) cut the alt-text down to a maximum of 200 characters and b) cut the long description altogether, lots and lots and lots of information would be lost, including all text transcripts.
If you use a hashtag like
Thus, any new word in a multiple-word hashtag must be capitalised so that screen readers know that this is where a new word starts.
There are two ways of doing this.
One is camel case. Camel case is the lazy variant: The first word is not capitalised, all other words are.
The other one is Pascal case, named after the programming language Pascal. Pascal case is the prettier variant: All words are capitalised.
Replying to a public post with a DM isn't supported everywhere in the Fediverse anyway. This only works on purist microblogging server applications on which a thread is just a bunch of posts tied together with mentions.
It does not, however, work on more elaborate Fediverse server applications like Hubzilla (where I'm commenting from right now), (streams) and Forte. On these, a thread is an enclosed object with exactly one post, the start post, and otherwise comments. They have a highly complex permissions system in which all permissions in a conversation are defined by the post. If the post is public, all comments are public, full stop. So if you had replied to this otherwise 100% public, 100% Mastodon thread with a DM, then Hubzilla would have monkey-wrenched your DM into a public comment with a red padlock symbol for a permission conflict.
CC:
# # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # Find the latitdue and longitude of any place Alt-text must never include explanations or other additional information that is not available in the post text or the image!
Why
Because not everyone can access alt-text. Sighted people need a mouse/trackball/touchpad/trackpoint to access alt-text or a touch screen if the UI allows for that.
And in order to operate that, they need at least one working hand. But not everyone has working hands. Just like not everyone has working eyes, which is why you describe your images in the first place, right
For those who can't access alt-text, any information only available in alt-text and neither in the post text nor in the image itself is inaccessible and permanently lost. They can't open it, they can't read it. Ever.
This means: Explanations and additional information must always go into the post itself where everyone can access them!
Here are three relevant pages in my (very early WIP) wiki about image descriptions and alt-text:
CC:
# # # # # # # # # #
In this regard, maybe moving someplace that offers would be an idea. It gives you not only full identity portability with all contacts, all content and nearly all settings, but even the possibility for your identity to simultaneously reside on two or more servers.
The only Fediverse server applications that offer nomadic identity are , and , all from the same family and launched by the same developer. They also offer and, of course, Fediverse connectivity. You can follow the same people as you can on Mastodon.
It's also rather unlikely that you'll be suspended or even kicked, seeing as they're geared towards self-moderating your stream rather than being mollycoddled and pampered by moderators. There simply are no dedicated moderators on any of their servers.
Caveats: You'll have to re-learn everything. They're nothing like Twitter or Mastodon. Hubzilla is the only one with easy-to-find public servers, and the vast majority of them is in Europe. You'll have to start over from scratch this one more time because you can't take anything with you from Mastodon. And there is no native mobile app for either of the three you don't have any choice but to use the Web interface.
CC:
# # # # # # # # # # # # #
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
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
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.
# # # # # # # # # # # #
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.
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.
# # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #
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.
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:
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.
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
At the same time, curiously, (streams) includes the line
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
# # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # 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:
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.
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
At the same time, curiously, (streams) includes the line
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
# # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # 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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
# # # # # # # # # # # # # # #
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.
# # # # # # # # # # # # #
So the activity that Mastodon has lost didn't go to Bluesky, but rather to places like Sharkey or GoToSocial or, in the cases of more daring users, even Friendica and its descendants (although I've yet to see anyone permanently move directly from Mastodon to (streams) or Forte, also because the latter inevitably requires your own server).
# # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #
Soy muy alta
Labour leader Chris Hipkins says Te Pti Mori a long way away from Government amid Toit Te Tiriti split
Speculation about the partys instability had grown since Te Tai Tokerau MP Mariameno Kapa-Kingi was suddenly demoted
Exciting news about !
TrumpNetanyahus Gaza Peace Deal Promises Indefinite Occupation
When President Donald Trump stood alongside Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in the White House this week to
:ArticlePost :Wednesday :English :Article :Factiva :SmartNews :SocialFlow :World :13.00 :2000-2999
O que Venda a Descoberto Como Usar Para Ganhar Mais A venda a descoberto, tambm conhecida como Short Selling, uma ttica empregada por traders para lucrar com a queda nos preos de ativos. Neste artigo, exploraremos as nuances dessa estrat...
Forscher identifizieren mglichen Biomarker fr Long Covid: Ein Forschungsteam der Medizinischen Universitt Wien hat einen potenziellen Biomarker fr Long Covid entdeckt. Wie die Universitt am...
DeepSeek tests sparse attention to slash AI processing costs -contextprocessing &IT
And what about non-English text
During all my researches about alt-text and image descriptions, I haven't found any steadfast and definite rule for how to transcribe non-English text in an image. On the one hand, you must transcribe any and all text in an image 100% verbatim. On the other hand, you must use the same language throughout your entire image description, also because no screen reader can switch language mid-reading process, much less mid-alt-text.
Just like the existence of non-readable text in an image has never been taken into consideration, neither has the existence of non-English text in an image.
I mean, I've run into this very issue a few times myself, so I know what I'm talking about from first-hand experience.
This is also why this part of my "how to transcribe text" entry in my alt-text/image description wiki will not have a definite method for transcribing foreign-language text anytime soon.
- check if you CapitalizeYourHashtags properly
This could easily go haywire on my two (streams) channels where I can and do use multiple-word hashtags with mid-hashtag blank spaces. Where Mastodon only supports
#MultipleWordHashtag, I can and do use #Multiple-word hashtag.I could do that here as well, but then I'd have two versions of some of my hashtags, and I'd still have to supply the PascalCased versions for those who filter any of my hashtags.
# # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #
What is too long/too short
There can't be any fixed definition for that. Not here in the Fediverse.
The "Over 200 characters is too long" rule does not work in and can't be applied to the Fediverse. No, sorry, it can't. I've explained it in my (very early WIP) wiki about image descriptions and alt-text in the Fediverse: (tldr: On the Web, over 200 characters in alt-text are evil, but you've got captions, and you've got ample of other possibilities to describe an image than the alt-text. On Mastodon, you've only got the alt-text for image descriptions, and people cheer for 1,000-character alt-texts.)
Depending on a) the kind of image you post, b) the obscurity of its contents, c) your audience (including whoever might stumble upon your image post if you post in public, that's basically the whole Fediverse and everyone with Web access), d) their knowledge about what your image shows and e) their to-be-expected curiosity about what your image shows, you may have to describe your image in way more than 200 characters.
It's a rendering from within a super-obscure 3-D virtual world. Next to nobody has ever seen it, but due to this being a 3-D virtual world (= proof that "the Metaverse is surprisingly not dead"), curiosity may be high. And my impression of especially Mastodon is that people prefer being given any and all information they may need right away to having to ask. Like, ask what something specific looks like.
And so the image description in the alt-text is a bit over 1,400 characters long. And it's still very lacking. It doesn't even mention certain elements in the image. And it doesn't transcribe even only one bit of text. It's actually an extremely shortened version of the long image description in the post text itself. Over 60,000 characters of visual description and necessary explanations and text transcripts. That's over 10,000 words. That's probably over three hours of a screen reader rambling. That's two full days of me examining the place up-close, looking up additional information and writing the description. But I deemed it necessary.
If it was an absolute requirement for me to a) cut the alt-text down to a maximum of 200 characters and b) cut the long description altogether, lots and lots and lots of information would be lost, including all text transcripts.
I must learn more about the rules of the capitalization police.
If you use a hashtag like
#superbowl, how is NVDA or any other screen reader software supposed to know whether that means "Super Bowl" or "superb owl"Thus, any new word in a multiple-word hashtag must be capitalised so that screen readers know that this is where a new word starts.
There are two ways of doing this.
One is camel case. Camel case is the lazy variant: The first word is not capitalised, all other words are.
#oneTwoThreeThe other one is Pascal case, named after the programming language Pascal. Pascal case is the prettier variant: All words are capitalised.
#OneTwoThreeOops, I shouldn't have posted those images in replies as public. Anyway, 833 out of 836 images with alttext ain't so bad.
Replying to a public post with a DM isn't supported everywhere in the Fediverse anyway. This only works on purist microblogging server applications on which a thread is just a bunch of posts tied together with mentions.
It does not, however, work on more elaborate Fediverse server applications like Hubzilla (where I'm commenting from right now), (streams) and Forte. On these, a thread is an enclosed object with exactly one post, the start post, and otherwise comments. They have a highly complex permissions system in which all permissions in a conversation are defined by the post. If the post is public, all comments are public, full stop. So if you had replied to this otherwise 100% public, 100% Mastodon thread with a DM, then Hubzilla would have monkey-wrenched your DM into a public comment with a red padlock symbol for a permission conflict.
CC:
# # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # Find the latitdue and longitude of any place Alt-text must never include explanations or other additional information that is not available in the post text or the image!
Why
Because not everyone can access alt-text. Sighted people need a mouse/trackball/touchpad/trackpoint to access alt-text or a touch screen if the UI allows for that.
And in order to operate that, they need at least one working hand. But not everyone has working hands. Just like not everyone has working eyes, which is why you describe your images in the first place, right
For those who can't access alt-text, any information only available in alt-text and neither in the post text nor in the image itself is inaccessible and permanently lost. They can't open it, they can't read it. Ever.
This means: Explanations and additional information must always go into the post itself where everyone can access them!
Here are three relevant pages in my (very early WIP) wiki about image descriptions and alt-text:
CC:
# # # # # # # # # #
Ancienne usine hydro-lectrique () Usine communale d'lvation d'eau et de production d'lectricit construite de 1901 1903 sur un bras de la Somme par les tablissements Dayd et Pill pour la ...
Suite
Photo CC-BY-SA 4.0 : Markus3 (Marc ROUSSEL)
<>
a fait lobjet dune perquisition cette semaine dans le cadre dune enqute ouverte en pour complicit de crimes contre lhumanit et de crimes de guerre en , a dclar le Parquet national antiterroriste.
: continued through a considerable tine, or to a great length
- French: long
- German: lang
- Italian: lungo
- Portuguese: longo
- Spanish: largo
------------
Guess the next word of the hour
If I get suspended from my current instance I doubt I will waste any more of my time looking for a new one on such a tenuous platform.
In this regard, maybe moving someplace that offers would be an idea. It gives you not only full identity portability with all contacts, all content and nearly all settings, but even the possibility for your identity to simultaneously reside on two or more servers.
The only Fediverse server applications that offer nomadic identity are , and , all from the same family and launched by the same developer. They also offer and, of course, Fediverse connectivity. You can follow the same people as you can on Mastodon.
It's also rather unlikely that you'll be suspended or even kicked, seeing as they're geared towards self-moderating your stream rather than being mollycoddled and pampered by moderators. There simply are no dedicated moderators on any of their servers.
Caveats: You'll have to re-learn everything. They're nothing like Twitter or Mastodon. Hubzilla is the only one with easy-to-find public servers, and the vast majority of them is in Europe. You'll have to start over from scratch this one more time because you can't take anything with you from Mastodon. And there is no native mobile app for either of the three you don't have any choice but to use the Web interface.
CC:
# # # # # # # # # # # # #
Matt Chapmans Friday ITV Racing fancies
Matt is keen on Aimeric in the 15:35 at Newmarket. Fridays ITV Racing Tips 13:15 Newmarket Never
Limani Roslyn: An Upscale Seafood Experience
A dining experience at Limani Roslyn will top your all-time favorites on Long Island. Its upscale fan-base definitely has this one right. You will instantl
-leisure -culture -island-weekly &Dine
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
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.
- Mike lief bis 2023 nach der Devise: "Wenn du es baust, werden sie kommen." Er hat erst 2023 angefangen, fr irgendwas Werbung zu machen.
- Unsere Entwickler kommen selbst nicht dazu, Werbung zu machen. Das bleibt an der Community hngen.
- Ein Teil der Community "spricht nur Entwickler" bzw. "spricht nur Admin", kann Hubzilla also keinen Endanwendern schmackhaft machen, weil die das Devsprech bzw. Adminsprech gar nicht verstehen.
- Ein anderer Teil sein wie: "Hubzilla mu erst noch dies-und-das-und-jenes in Ordnung bringen, um tageslichttauglich zu werden!1!!" Dazu zhlen auch die, die sagen, es lohnt sich nicht, ein Hubzilla zu bewerben, fr das es keine nativen Android-Apps im Google Play Store und iPhone-Apps im Apple App Store gibt.
- Dann drfte es die geben, die eher dafr sind, da die alten Hubzilla-Recken unter sich bleiben, und gar keine Newbies wollen. Deckungsgleich mit denen, die ganz genau wissen, warum sie PubCrawl nie aktiviert (oder wieder deaktiviert) haben.
- Man hat auf wundersame Art und Weise auf Mastodon nur von Mastodon aus wirklich Reichweite, obwohl die Trter gar nicht mitkriegen, was woher kommt. Aber Hubzilla wird, wenn, dann mit Ausnahme von nur von Hubzilla aus beworben.
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/shareThe 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)... /shareBoth 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/shareThe 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)... /shareBoth 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:
- Auch wenn du einen Post als nicht quote-post-bar einstellst, knnen Pleroma, Misskey, Friendica & Co. den trotzdem ungehindert quote-posten.
- Gleichzeitig kann niemand auf Mastodon irgendwas auf Pleroma, Misskey, Friendica & Co. quote-posten, obwohl es jeder darf.
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
- in alle ffentlichkeit
- nur an mich selbst
- an eine bestimmte Privacy Group (quasi wie eine Liste auf Mastodon, aber sehr viel mchtiger)
- an diejenigen, denen ich ein Profil zugewiesen habe, das nicht das Standardprofil meines Kanals ist (Mastodon hat dagegen nur ein Profil pro Konto)
- an ein bestimmtes Forum/eine bestimmte Gruppe
- eine beliebige individuelle Auswahl aus einzelnen Kontakten, Foren/Gruppen, Privacy Groups und Profilzugewiesenen
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.
- The ATmosphere is much more centralised. It almost entirely consists of bsky.app, at least as far as the relay and AppView parts are concerned. This means that the ATmosphere is almost entirely at home in the USA and US-owned.
The Fediverse is much more spread around the globe. Even mastodon.social "only" accounts for a bit over 20% of the Fediverse. - The AT protocol itself is basically owned by a US for-profit corporation.
ActivityPub is not owned by any one corporation. It was not created by Mastodon CEO Eugen Rochko, nor is it owned by Mastodon, Inc. If anything, it is "owned" by the World Wide Web Consortium, but the W3C actually has little power over it since the ActivityPub development body has been dissolved. There is no way that US authoritarianism can put pressure on the Fediverse via the protocol. - Mastodon does have a CEO and a for-profit Mastodon, Inc. But Mastodon can work without Mastodon, Inc. because it is owned and developed by the German non-profit Mastodon gGmbH. Also, Eugen Rochko is a German residing in Germany. The US administration has exactly zero power over him.
- The Fediverse is far from being only Mastodon. Mastodon's market share has falled under 60%. And large parts of the rest of the Fediverse are entirely at home outside the USA.
Misskey and CherryPick, for example, are entirely made in Japan. They don't have for-profit corporations, they don't have non-profits, they don't have CEOs. They only have developers. Neither has an official app in the Apple App Store or the Google Play Store.
Friendica is now maintained by two Germans. It doesn't have a for-profit corporation, it doesn't have a non-profit, it doesn't have a CEO. It only has developers. It doesn't have an official app in the Apple App Store or in the Google Play Store, and third-party apps are only available for Android.
Hubzilla is now maintained by a German and a Norwegian. It doesn't have a for-profit corporation, it doesn't have a non-profit, it doesn't have a CEO. It only has developers. There are no apps for it at all in the Apple App Store or in the Google Play Store.
(streams) and Forte are made in Australia. They don't have a for-profit corporation, they don't have a non-profit, they don't have a CEO. They only have one main developer. There are no apps for them at all, full stop, so it's literally impossible for Apple and Alphabet to do anything against them.
The only way that US authoritarianism could act against them by acting against the people behind them would amount to acts of war against NATO members.
At this point, a special mention goes to Pixelfed, Loops, the Fedilab app and the FediDB. They're all developed in France. And the USA had better think twice before sending a SEALS team into a nation with nuclear weapons just to shut down social apps. - Essentially, if Apple and Google wanted to remove all apps that can access the Free Social Web from their app stores, they'd also have to remove Safari and Chrome.
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:
- Hubzilla
Fork of fork of (non-nomadic) Friendica by Friendica's creator
2012/2015
Server lists:
No iOS apps
No Android apps
Can be installed as a Progressive Web App - (streams)
Fork of fork of three forks of fork (of fork) of Hubzilla by the same creator
2021
Intentionally and officially no name, no brand, hence the parentheses around the unofficial name ("(streams)")
No official website
Open-registration server in North America (USA):
Open-registration server in Europe (Hungary, German admin, speaks German and English):
No iOS apps
No Android apps
Can be installed as a Progressive Web App - Forte
Fork of (streams) by the same creator
2024
No official website
No open-registration servers
No iOS apps
No Android apps
Can be installed as a Progressive Web App
# # # # # # # # # # # # # # # 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.
# # # # # # # # # # # # #
Last updated: 2025-10-05
All text and images © eLoc8.is-fabulous.com