OK, so just learnt we can "defederate" instances. Good.
But this isn't realistic on the long-term: harassment mitigations and other things like that are a full-time job, almost 24/7.
Also, the "mail-address" model creates some issues, in the end:
- lack of possibility to easily find contact
- strong issues with identity theft (see how @numerama solved this issue - OK, that's also part of the federation "pros")
Anyway, this is looking better overall than I anticipated.
The email analogy of how this works made by @munin makes a lot of sense to me, but also suggests we may see a lot of consolidation and professionalisation in instance providers if people do keep on joining. The hobby/donation model will only take you so far.
Certain email servers block all email from certain other servers for various reasons; email addresses are not 'portable' to other servers, etc.
Why is this acceptable for email but not for social media?
Mastodon's federation introduces UX challenges.
One that worries me a lot is about message forgery. Anyone can forge a twoot, even cross-server.
Whereas Twitter Inc might be trustworthy enough to not forge transcripts. Anyone can run a Mastodon server and might want to abuse it to influence people (see Russian troll campaigns).
Should Mastodon "home servers" cryptographically sign updates? Should there be end-to-end signatures? Anyone has thoughts on this?
My understanding right now is there could be, say, a dozen NYtimes accounts on different instances?
Interests: science, politics, tech, business, and any combination thereof.
The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!