XSF Discussion - 2023-07-29

> moparisthebest: > 高杰1510: then you'll need to join or start a private chat then turn on OMEMO on that screen okay，thks

At least the "too confusing, too much work, too intimidating" part is relevant to XMPP https://erinkissane.com/mastodon-is-easy-and-fun-except-when-it-isnt

> At least the "too confusing, too much work, too intimidating" part is relevant to XMPP https://erinkissane.com/mastodon-is-easy-and-fun-except-when-it-isnt I have to say I must fit into a weird category, because I don't feel that for either XMPP or Mastodon. To me it felt fairly straightforward, even for Mastodon.

mastodon makes less sense when you look at wider activitypub

xmpp managed to be relatively cohesive with feature set across software

I think a lot of the problems Activitypub has that XMPP has avoided so far is huge instance-wide blocklists

That's not an AP nor XMPP issue though, that's a deployment thing. And I don't personally think it's an issue anyway

Expect for all these people that said it was an issue for them?

I have friends that cannot seem to find an AP server where they can message all their friends because various servers have huge blocklists

Number one issue was unfriendlyness and elitism. So 🤷

Can't fix that with a protocol optimisation

moparisthebest, it's an issue for these people maybe, not for me.

I think it's a feature

And I don't mean legitimate blocking reasons, one of them was on a server blocked for "corporate bootlicking" (no one knows what this means)

Yea not an issue for my either because I run my own server

Wait until they use allow-lists 😊

I believe many of the social problems with Mastodon are things we (as in XMPP) mostly avoid by focusing more on private small group chats.

very much agreed. and lately with the spam waves we have been seeing how quickly xmpp can break down

even with a handful of spammers

"break down"?

Scaling human communications is the hard problem. Especially in the "Twitter" direction of public broadcast social media.

in the sense that the group gets overrun by spam, and then the only way currently available to handle that is to put the room in approved people can message

and then we allow everybody again. until the next spam wave

I'm in probably 70 MUCs and about 2 of them did that

"spam wave" as in the case of one bored asshole going around posting things nobody wants to see?

yep

Terminology...

i would say a good 30-40% for me

The others relied on RTBL which was pretty effective once adopted

but it depends on the group i guess

yeah RTBL helps a lot. i wouldntbe using public xmpp without it

The spam wave wasn't even a problem at all for the vast majority of people that use sensible clients, ie not auto downloading images and handling moderated messages

I think not auto downloading might be a majority, but pretty sure clients supporting moderation are a minority

Anyway I think the AP "we'll just create incompatible silos via blocklist" is the absolute worst form of... Whatever they are trying to do?

I mean I think they claim it's something about "safety" but that makes no sense

I think it makes some sense for a decentralized social network

But it is not perfect and has a way to go

there's a Mastodon server that specializes on underage fap materials; is there a XMPP server for that?

And people ask why xmppbl.org only publishes hashes

As far as I can tell AP has nothing at all to protect against the kind of spammer XMPP has had

ie one that just continuously registers on good public servers and spams

this mai be of interest: https://thebad.space

> As far as I can tell AP has nothing at all to protect against the kind of spammer XMPP has had it is known that why people are moving to gotosocial for small new instances ↺

it has better safety than mastodon

> this mai be of interest: > https://thebad.space this is a blocklist by a black person for activitypub ↺

> it has better safety than mastodon What does it have/do differently? ↺

its made by trans people for one. that means they know what safety is needed. practically it does: filtering on how sees the post. friends, mutuals whatever. toggle if the post can be shared or liked or replied. better features to share blocklists realtime. as some of the things. they list stuff here: https://github.com/superseriousbusiness/gotosocial#features ✏

its made by trans people for one. that means they know what safety is needed. practically it does: filtering on who sees the post. friends, mutuals whatever. toggle if the post can be shared or liked or replied. better features to share blocklists realtime. as some of the things. they list stuff here: https://github.com/superseriousbusiness/gotosocial#features ✏

they also want to add reputation based federation and community voting for moderation actions. which is something i have on my radar too.

> its made by trans people for one. that means they know what safety is needed. Lol that sounds like wild and crazy speculation > filtering on who sees the post. friends, mutuals whatever. All other AP implementations I know of already do this > toggle if the post can be shared or liked or replied. Impossible in a federated network, I *assume* you mean this implementation respects those hints, but it's not very useful > better features to share blocklists realtime. finally something

I've been amazed how easy we have it for spam in our big public MUCs so far

> they also want to add reputation based federation and community voting for moderation actions. which is something i have on my radar too. I've had an idea in my head about a bot that watches for reactions and takes actions. E.g. after some treshold of 🔨️ reactions to a message, whoever posted it gets banned. ↺

> they also want to add reputation based federation Absolutely insane for a federated system, that's the realm of silos, discouraging people from running their own servers is super bad imho

Community voting could be good though, maybe

email has it

On the one hand I like that idea, on the other ... a spammers could get 10 accounts and let that bot ban random people

we have the JabberSPAM blocklist

Zash: indeed, and it's a massive anti feature

Menel: yep would have to be *very* careful

Menel, only seeing the problems?

I don't see many posts about how it's great that Gmail makes it hard to run your own server

Nah, as I said I kinda like the idea.. Social control is not as bad a control as many think...

Would be a lot of work to tune stuff like that, but so it is with rate limits and stuff too.

And as long as it's not permanent and irrevocable it wouldn't be that big of deal

Yeah, time-limited affiliations, that's something that would be good to have.