Zum Inhalt der Seite gehen


EU : Our commitment to the fediverse is here to stay.


EU :

Our commitment to the fediverse is here to stay.

We are working on a solution to ensure our continued presence on your feeds, taking full advantage of Mastodon's identity portability.

And we are even growing the team behind our Mastodon presence, increasing efforts to engage with your comments on our posts.

We are fully committed to being a real part of the conversation in the fediverse.

Interested in our next steps? Follow us as we take on this new chapter.


/me : 🤔


Our commitment to the fediverse is here to stay.

We are working on a solution to ensure our continued presence on your feeds, taking full advantage of Mastodon's identity portability.

And we are even growing the team behind our Mastodon presence, increasing efforts to engage with your comments on our posts.

We are fully committed to being a real part of the conversation in the fediverse.

Interested in our next steps? Follow us as we take on this new chapter.


Als Antwort auf lemmyreader

If they could encourage it at the countries level that would be nice too.

Some German and NL public services have Mastodon accounts IIRC, that's a first step.

Als Antwort auf Blaze

@Blaze

For Germany, it's https://social.bund.de/about

@lemmyreader

Fediverse hat dies geteilt.

Als Antwort auf zeitverschreib [friendica]

You included the . at the end of the sentence in the URL so it doesn't work properly.
Als Antwort auf taladar

@taladar Yes, I noticed that and edited the post after a few seconds. Seems that did not get forwarded to Lemmy.

Fediverse hat dies geteilt.

Als Antwort auf lemmyreader

The fediverse really needs key-signed messages.

As long as accounts reside on one server it fails to accomplish its goals, IMO

Als Antwort auf frightful_hobgoblin

The Fediverse's main goal was to be a middle ground between completely centralized and completely decentralized networks, though... So I'd say it has accomplished its goal.
Als Antwort auf cheer

Fair enough if you want to move the goal there it's a score.

I had thought the goal was to remove central control over communication.

AFAIK, the team never defined an official goal.

Als Antwort auf Flax_vert

If posts were signed, it wont matter what instance youre posting from since your identity would be tied to your public key and not the account on a Mastodon/lemmy/etc server.

Thats more decentralized. It helps when you get banned, a server shuts down etc.

Als Antwort auf frightful_hobgoblin

But wouldn‘t the public key need to be somewhere to? At some point down the line you will probably have to trust some server.
Als Antwort auf krippix

It could be shared across instances too. It's not a hard problem.

Fediverse currently has totally centralised takedowns and bans coz it uses the same account-model as Twitter/Facebook

Als Antwort auf krippix

No, that’s not how that works.

Users can generate their own keys, and you know it’s the same user as long as they have the same key, even if they’re on different servers.

No certificate authority is required for this kind of use case.

Als Antwort auf Excel

He's right that the public key would have to be somewhere, maybe on the profile page. The public key would be one more thing to be federated across servers.
Als Antwort auf Excel

Ok, but if it's not bound to something like an official domain name how can you be sure the person who signed their posts as president of the EU (or whatever the official title is) to actually be that person is real life?
Als Antwort auf qwerty

It would be a simple enough feature to code on top of the existing Fediverse
Als Antwort auf frightful_hobgoblin

Is there any benefit to it over nostr though? You'd have to link your public key to your account(s) and store a backup of your private key in addition to your regular login/password just to get a more fragmented and less seamless version of nostr. A lot of people already have issues figuring out how fediverse works with multiple instances and all... now they'd have multiple accounts with different credentials to keep track of on top of a meta login/password (pub/priv key). With nostr you only have 1 login/password (pub/priv key) to everything, it's just long and you can't change it. At least I think that's how it works, I don't really use twitter/nostr/mastodon type of sites.
Als Antwort auf qwerty

Userbase.

This game is more about mindshare. It's not about technical capabilities. Facebook are technically dismal.

https://stats.nostr.band/

https://the-federation.info/

Als Antwort auf frightful_hobgoblin

Yes, we need another PGP vs S/MIME flame war, it's been so long!
Als Antwort auf frightful_hobgoblin

It's called self sovereign identity. I'm working on it, it's a big change that may be accelerated by eIDAS.
Als Antwort auf lemmyreader

I thought I saw posts on here from some people suggesting that there were issues with EU law and requirements to be able to delete old messages, which is impossible due to fediverse structure.
Did that get resolved or was that person wrong?
Als Antwort auf Hello_there

The question hasn't been legally tested, it's no more certain now than it was before.

While it might be the case that the EU could come down on a user's main instance for not deleting everywhere, really it's no different to anywhere else - any app that uses an API or even just a simple scraper can get comments that a user posts, so as with those it could also simply fall to the user to go around each and every instance and request deletion. Arguably, the Fediverse is better than this because it does include a facility for deleting things from a host instance - the only issue is that the other instance might not necessarily follow that (as instances don't necessarily run pure lemmy code, in fact they could run anything).

Als Antwort auf TWeaK

I thought the EU was in the process of carving out an exception for non-profit organizations
Als Antwort auf lemmyreader

This is the way to go. Eu and Europe have to quit US and Chinese closed social media for another solution that can be controlled from Europe.
Als Antwort auf moitoi

Yes, agreed. But read the other post and this comment : https://lemmy.ml/comment/10590333 I fear that big tech giant products usage is too strong and only increasing. More and more Google and Microsoft data centers and offices are build in Europe lately. More jobs, less nature, more pollution, less digital sovereignty, more dependency on big tech :(


Yes. I think (seen in other news) it is a shame to repeatedly see governments, companies and others say things like "We have no choice than to move to the cloud, because their offer and services are irreplaceable" where the cloud is GAFAM.
Meanwhile new data centers for Microsoft and Google are build in Europe, which maybe offers new jobs to some, but increases dependency on GAFAM. I found this article a sad story. A voice "successful" pilot but probably "never again" cause "money". But I guess the lobbying is strong in that area too, besides the easy of use of "just using YouTube". Last week I read an interview with a farmer mentioning that he and other farmers talked to high ranked EU politicians which encouraged them to keep protesting for a more sustainable agriculture but "they could not do anything for them". The farmer concluded that the lobbying by companies is very strong :(

Als Antwort auf lemmyreader

Ban american corporations which still store data on EU citizens on US servers.
Als Antwort auf riodoro1

I like the idea! But from what I've read USA will be able to access EU citizens data even on EU servers maintained by USA big tech companies.That's how USA law works :(