@NigelFrobisher There actually are a bunch of competing fediverse platforms that use entirely different codebases. Some are actually older than Mastodon.
For example, I am posting from Hubzilla, not Mastodon. Hubzilla has an entirely different codebase and an entirely different feature set.
It is not made up. Read about Stalin. A lot of things happened when he was in power. And a lot of things changed after he was no longer in power.
If your goal is to solve society's problems, you have to listen to everyone, even people you disagree with, in order to identity the underlying problems.
And sometimes you have to read between the lines because they are not politically and economically literate. And unfortunately, that means people often latch onto ideas that sound good to them, but may or may not be a good idea in real life.
For example, some people may blame immigration for their problems. But that is not the real problem. That is just a scapegoat that the politicians use. The real problem is that they are struggling financially, and don't know how to fix it, most likely because someone is taking advantage of them and/or they don't have what they need to be successful.
If you fix their economic problems, and educate them on what the real problems are, they will realize that the immigrants were never the problem. This will reduce the tension and hate, and expose the propaganda for what it is.
But you can't change anyone's minds if you label them as enemies and refuse to listen to them. And you can't solve problems if you can't identify the underlying issues people are concerned with.
Hubzilla has built-in cloud storage, where you can host anything you want, and you can even determine who can see it. Images, videos, documents, binary files, whatever.
@julian I think that they are prioritizing big players. Mastodon is an obvious priority. They are working with Bridgy Fed to connect with Bluesky. I am sure at some point they will have to support WordPress' ActivityPub implementation. Smaller players won't get as much attention, at least for now.
Threads relying on the existence of a Mastodon-specific API suggests that they're federating with Mastodon only (perhaps as part of a limited experiment), or that it is an oversight that needs to be fixed on their end with time.
Well, that is odd. Because many other platforms have public feeds... they just don't use the Mastodon API... because they are not Mastodon.
It's not just that they may not care. They may not know what they're being asked or know what the consequences are for choosing either option. Then they sit there for 30 minutes searching the internet for what the question means.
@julian Many of the comments in this thread are appearing in Hubzilla as being from [email protected] instead of the real author.
P.S. I'd start a new topic for this but I don't know how remotely.
@julian Sorry if I was a bit salty earlier and I didn't want to rain on anyone's parade.
There are many benefits to this proposed variation of quote posts where the person being quoted can update or delete their quote.
Let me argue the other side then.
One big benefit of this proposed quote post methodology is that it would be a version that Mastodon, et. al. would probably be willing to support. They have valid concerns that people will abuse quote posts to harass others. This proposal mitigates that.
It also is useful in non-malicious contexts since people can fix typos and errors in their original post. It's also useful if the person being quoted wants to retract what they said, perhaps because they changed their mind on a topic or found new information.
Malicious use can be mitigated in the UI by indicating the quoted person changed their post and providing a history of changes. Some platforms already do this for regular posts.
The quoted person being able to delete their quote raises some unique philosophical questions, like whether a politician can delete something they said from a journalist's quote post. Or where someone intentionally changes their post in a malicious manner, which alters the quote post and makes the person quoting someone else look bad.
So, there are many facets to this proposal. It still may be good to pursue even if some platforms aren't going to implement it. But there are also some scenarios we want to consider.
@julian To be fair, platforms that don't have quote posts might be interested in this, since they can offer quote posts without the risk.
In the short term, I think that Bridgy Fed's multi-protocol bridge has a better chance of decentralizing Bluesky than Bluesky.