Dan 🔓
, powered by sarcasm
Eugen RochkoPlease report any account that tells you that you need to verify your #Mastodon account to continue using it through a private message. It is a scam. We do not require identity verification. Real staff accounts either have a special role badge on their profile or are verified through the joinmastodon.org domain and will typically never reach out through private messages.
PeterKReilly@Gargron can you PLEASE find a way to carry hashtags through to replies? It will be the single most important thing you ever do to increase engagement across people's posts
@Gargron I understand the lack of algorithm but in a hashtag based system conversations DIE with out the ability to carry the hash tags automatically. You really want to make repliers manually attach legacy hash tags? Just painfully awkward
100%/0% TAX ✅ ✅
Roni Laukkarinen@shoppingtonz @PeterKReilly How is this related to verification and what are "legacy hashtags"? Aren't hashtags working when you use them in replies? I do not understand.
@rolle @shoppingtonz no when I reply to a message hashtags for. The original post do not appear. I have assumed it was part of the mastodon platform. I have to re type hashtags if I want to reply. Is that not the case for others?
stevE 🌼@PeterKReilly Is this in any way related to this topic? And since when is Mastodon about "increase engagement"?
@stevE actually it is about engagement with out algorithms. Without engagement the platform won’t attract users away from commercial social media platforms. This is one of societies most urgent needs as algorithm driven engagement leads to the most toxic behaviors on social media platforms. Mastodon is a hashtag driven engagement vector nd without replies automatically carrying through you literally lose the thread…
@PeterKReilly you didn't answer my first question and it would be great if you could separate your personal believes from facts or at least mention the source of your statement. Don't you think people join Mastodon and the fediverse for a number of reasons? Do you really think or even have some scientific proof that without your suggested feature people won't join Mastodon?
Imho it would probably make things worse and unusable. If people (like you) are highjacking topics with unrelated toots but their toot is getting the hashtag of the original (unrelated) toot, it would crash the whole hashtag usability. So imho it's way more safer for the system to limit hashtags to the intelligent use of the users. And no one stops you from using them helpful in your reply.
Btw. I never lost a thread, especially not literally.
Imho it would probably make things worse and unusable. If people (like you) are highjacking topics with unrelated toots but their toot is getting the hashtag of the original (unrelated) toot, it would crash the whole hashtag usability. So imho it's way more safer for the system to limit hashtags to the intelligent use of the users. And no one stops you from using them helpful in your reply.
Btw. I never lost a thread, especially not literally.
@stevE no it wasn’t related to the topic, you got me there
@PeterKReilly ok, so...
Do you know how easy it is to jump from a reply to the original toot and showing literarily the whole thread?
And could we agree that toots with wrong/misleading/unrelated hashtags are worse than toots without hashtags?
Especially in a system where hashtags are important?
And if so, could you agree that your reply is a good example why it shouldn't get the hashtags of the original toot?
And do you still think it should be easy for people to transfer the wrong hashtags to every unrelated/unnecessary reply instead of having the user in charge using the appropriate hashtags by themselves wisely?
I'm already got - without being interested in - on your topic because you tooted it under a false flag and I hope you can see why I don't want it easy for people hijacking not only other topics with unrelated replies but even worse with the wrong hashtags...
Roche Limit@rochelimit @Gargron thanks that’s helpful. It might be the instance I am on.
LumiWorxThis prompts a question... is there some administrative send-to-all toot functionality at the instance level to message all users in cases like this?
If not, it might be worthy of consideration for a future feature.
FediThing 🏳️🌈There is a server announcement system for admins, it appears in a totally different format at the top of the timeline.
Ahhh... Thanks. A helpful feature, I think, for when it's truly needed.
Sander Meijer@lumiworx @FediThing in 4.4.x it is even possible to send out a mail as an admin to the people on yoir instance when you set an announcement. Handy, as not all apps show announcements and not all people use the web UI. That was a great addition.
Mastodon Belgium AdminSince I follow Eugen, his toot showed up immediately, but I also wondered how other instance users might get the same info... and now that I'm thinking about it, what mechanism may be available to send something to all instances if/when a larger emergency type notification could be warranted.
Tokyo Outsider (337ppm)Plus, this post from @spiezmaestro addresses some of the same points.... which didn't get tagged as a mention in my last reply.
https://social.spiezmaestro.ch/@spiezmaestro/114843150427798900
Sander Meijer (@spiezmaestro@social.spiezmaestro.ch)
@lumiworx@mastodon.social @FediThing@chinwag.org in 4.4.x it is even possible to send out a mail as an admin to the people on yoir instance when you set an announcement. Handy, as not all apps show announcements and not all people use the web UI. That was a great addition.
This is by the way how that looks like:
https://github.com/mastodon/mastodon/pull/33928
No opt-out, see:
Thank you for the links.
As an admin on a larger forum, it has been helpful for us to have something very similar on a couple of occasions.
Banners and pinned topics or posts may be adequate enough for hourly or daily visitors, but not all users will be that regular, so when urgency and the severity of an issue becomes important, I appreciate that I can get a direct and reliable alert via email.
Matthew Cullis
justbob@Gargron There's a screenshot of such a message here so people know what it might look like: https://social.growyourown.services/@FediTips/114836903383114603
This particular message attempted to trick people into entering their credit card details.
Fedi.Tips (@FediTips@social.growyourown.services)
Attached: 1 image ⚠️ If you see a post or DM saying "your account is currently suspended for verification purposes", do NOT click on the link. It is a scam. Fediverse servers do not ask people to verify their identity. There is an optional self-verification system, but that's just for those who want to use it. No one is ever asked to do it. If you are in ANY doubt about ANY official-looking message, contact your own server's admin directly using their public email address on your server's website's "About" page.
Linux Is BestI want to step in and point out that there’s a lot of misinformation circulating.
Some people have been incorrectly claiming that if one country passes a certain law, then everyone — everywhere — must comply with it.
That’s not how jurisdiction works.
You’re responsible for following the laws of your own country. Your government can’t impose its laws on the entire world, and neither can any other government.
For example, if Russia suddenly requires that anyone signing up for a website must pay $5 and submit a DNA sample — but your site, and you are based in France — you’re under no obligation to comply. Russia can make whatever demands it wants, but you’re not Russian, and it’s not your responsibility to enforce their laws.
Mastodon MigrationWhat is particularly troubling about #Bluesky is their aggressive policy of obeying in advance all laws from any jurisdiction. They banned Turkish dissidents under this rationale, and are now preemptively doing UK ID verification. It makes one think these reasons are pretextual, or at the very least cowardly.
Blue Sky is a corporation trying to please its shareholders.
I also don’t know where Blue Sky’s offices are. If they’re registered in a particular country, then they’re subject to that country’s jurisdiction.
But if you're running a forum or a Fediverse site, and neither you nor your server is located there, you can tell them to go to hell — because it’s not your problem.
All valid points. And that is sort of the whole point. Bluesky, as a US corporation without apparently very deep pockets has got to be afraid of their legal exposure if only due to the potential cost of litigation. So, they are not well situated to protect their user's privacy rights.
I’ve supposedly violated the laws of several countries in the past when I ran a forum community. I was allegedly summoned, sued, and even "lost" cases simply because I didn’t acknowledge them or show up. But I couldn’t care less then, and I still don’t — because it was all political theater. I wasn’t a citizen of those countries.
Back in the day, my forum had over 20 million users. I focused solely on following the laws of my own country — not the laws of every country on the planet.
vandorb12@Linux @mastodonmigration this reminds me when The Bay named and shamed US companies when they set them letters.
Fantastic work.
Fantastic work.
Arguably, The Pirate Bay was violating international copyright law — not just the laws of a single nation.
Everyone who has challenged my comment keeps citing extreme cases as examples. But that’s exactly the issue: those are extreme circumstances — just like The Pirate Bay itself.
If you’re reckless enough to violate global, internationally recognized laws, then yes, that’s a problem. But you are not obligated to recognize the laws of every country on Earth, nor can any one nation claim the right to make laws for the entire planet.
pettter@Linux @mastodonmigration dude, there's no such thing as INTERNATIONAL LAW. We have international treaties that facilitate agreements between States. Those treaties are the only reason why extradition for crimes commited outside of the prosecuting State can exist.
If we had international law, then we would need international representation and international taxation.
Last I recall, I never had to pay a percentage of my wages to any international body.
If we had international law, then we would need international representation and international taxation.
Last I recall, I never had to pay a percentage of my wages to any international body.
You're right in the strictest sense — there's no single global government enforcing a unified “international law.” What I meant (and should have phrased better) is internationally coordinated legal norms — the kind of standards that are upheld across multiple jurisdictions via treaties, conventions, or reciprocal enforcement agreements.
Copyright enforcement, extradition, anti-money laundering — these all fall under that umbrella. Not because there's a global legislature, but because there's broad state-level consensus and mechanisms for enforcement across borders.
But here's the real point I was making: just because a country passes a law doesn't mean it applies to the entire world. UK law applies in the UK. A platform or individual with no UK presence, business entity, or infrastructure is under no obligation to comply with UK-specific rules — like ID verification — unless they're actively targeting or operating in the UK.
No country has unlimited legal reach. That's why we have jurisdiction. Otherwise, every website on Earth would need to comply with every contradictory law from every country on Earth — which is obviously unworkable.
So yeah, there's no global court or global tax — and that's exactly why no single country gets to unilaterally decide what the world must do.
Dr. Eric J. Fielding, PhD@Linux @vandorb12 @mastodonmigration Russia is trying to implement a law that mobile phones sold in Russia must have the Russian App Store preinstalled and allow users to install apps from the RU-store. This is different because it involves a sale of a physical device inside the Russian territory. Apple may decide to stop selling iPhones in Russia if they require this.
If you read the post you are replying to then you would see that this is precisely the point Linux is making. Using a 'dude' is not really constructive conversation, particularly when you have misunderstood the thread.
CM Thiede@mastodonmigration @Linux for most, all worries could be eliminated by adhering to the GDPR. But the path to riches is more constrained. More enticing, is building on a no holds barred platform that pays big for authoritarian control.
Adam Dalliance@mastodonmigration @Linux Bluesky will want to run advert sales in most countries once they get their advert sales departments up and running. That'll make them subject to some degree or another to the laws of every country that they do advert sales in.
Yes and No.
Running ads on the Internet freely displayable to the whole world on the World Wide Web does not make you subject to every nation on the planet. Any more than having registration open and available to everyone on the planet.
However, if your business is accepting ads from China (random example) those ads would be under China's jurisdiction. It would be in your best interest to be sure your site in Germany (random example) did not get blacklisted by China, preventing you from doing business with other Chinese companies.
As I said, Blue Sky is trying to please their shareholders, so they're going to follow a lot of jurisdictions from a lot of countries, voluntarily.
Yeah, you can /run/ ads anywhere you like but if you're selling them to English companies that are using English Pounds and paying English taxes on the sales then England has a way to sanction you.
Who you sell ads to does not make you subject to the jurisdiction of a particular country.
I can sell digital products and services to every country in the world and I don't need to update my terms of services for every country on the planet.
Side note:
I was previously using Russia and China as examples as to avoid patriotism, which unfortunately complicates matters when you try to have rational conversations on the internet. When you involve patriotism, everyone believes their country somehow supersedes everybody else's. Thank you for everybody, that's not how it works.
But since you want to use the UK, for example. If I am a registered business in the UK, than yes, I am subject to UK jurisdiction. If I have offices in the UK, I am, of course, subject to UK jurisdiction. If I am banking in the UK, once more, of course, I'm subject to UK jurisdiction.
But simply having a website on the internet available to everybody doesn't make me suddenly subject to every country on the planet.
@Linux That's right. Having the website doesn't, having the office here selling adverts does.
If you have offices in the UK, yes, you're subject to UK jurisdiction.
But selling ads alone does not make you subject to someone's jurisdiction.
For example, if someone bought a campaign ad because they're running against Vladimir Putin, and the Russia government would prefer I not display that ad on my website, that is Russia's problem, not my own.
@Linux Yep, but you don't sell many ads that way. Bluesky will want a local office staffed with local sales people taking local money and using it to bribe local politicians.
As I said, Blue Sky is trying to please shareholders.
My comments were generally concerning the Fediverse. There are a lot of people wrongfully believing that everyone, everywhere, must now comply.
The scammer is using that mindset as a form of mental and emotional manipulation.
The Vampire Fish Queen@mastodonmigration @Linux Bluesky should just block the UK.
@TheVampireFishQueen @mastodonmigration
I personally, disagree with Blue Sky's stance on this. But I am also not trying to please shareholders either.
I get why some sites choose to block UK users — it’s the path of least resistance. But I’d rather not take that route.
My goal isn’t to fragment access or limit the reach of the site, especially when there’s no legal obligation to comply with UK-specific laws just because someone from there signs up.
As long as I’m not operating in or targeting the UK, I’m within my rights to keep registration open. UK users are responsible for understanding their own local laws — that burden doesn’t automatically fall on every website they visit.
Blocking might be easy, but it’s not necessary — and it’s definitely not the only responsible option.
Brad Ganley@Linux @TheVampireFishQueen @mastodonmigration It might be worth noting that the geolabeller and restrictions are only on Bluesky's appview which can be replaced with a different appview (deer.social) or circumvented with a ublock rule. Doesn't really affect the matter at hand, really, but the restrictions are pretty siloed to the corporate written bluesky appview and nowhere else.
Just a trash panda 🦝@Linux @mastodonmigration The act applies extras territorially. So please be careful if you run a Mastodon server with UK users and have anyone involved in your team that is personally subject to UK jurisdiction.
Edit: Removed "not true" after re-reading your post.
@trashpanda @mastodonmigration
They can word it anyway they want, but they cannot enforce their laws on every nation on the planet and every citizen everywhere.
That is not how the world works.
If it did, we'd all be in deep trouble with Russia, China, and the United States dictating terms to everyone on earth.
Thankfully, it does not work that way.
@Linux @mastodonmigration I think we posted at the same time. See my post here in reply to your other post. I would be making the same counterpoint in this reply.
https://m.alittlenook.net/@trashpanda/114843291275393570
https://m.alittlenook.net/@trashpanda/114843291275393570
@trashpanda @mastodonmigration
He was wanted internationally for child exploitation material and drug trafficking. He also stepped into the country he was wanted in, and so fell under their jurisdiction.
That's something completely different.
@Linux @mastodonmigration The fact that he was wanted for heinous crimes is less my point. There are examples where the crime is less heinous (United States v. Bowman comes to mind as a specific example).
You would need to travel or otherwise have someone personally subject to the jurisdiction of the country, but I don't think that is so rare. Travel is common, and I am sure Bluesky has employees that fit that description.
I can't in good faith yell at people for doing a thing to avoid arrest.
@trashpanda @mastodonmigration
I'm just going to block you — goodbye.
You're fearmongering and using wild, extreme examples to argue that your country’s laws somehow magically apply to everyone on the planet. That’s not how the world works.
The Nexus of Privacy@trashpanda yep. It’ll be interesting to see how things shake out here in fedi.
skua@Linux @trashpanda @mastodonmigration
Australian hacker was charged with crimes in USA.
Was arrested in Australia and extradited to the USA.
Some countries will arrest and extradite their citizens under international agreements.
USA will seek to extradite (remember Julian Assange?) foreign citizens while not extraditing (except accidentally as ICE is doing) it's own citizens.
@skua @trashpanda @mastodonmigration
I feel like you're reaching.
Wiki Leaks, was leaking state secrets. They became an international skeptical and yes, America made a deal with Australia.
That does not mean you need to comply with the laws of every foreign country, and that every foreign country can make laws that apply to everyone on earth.