I know a lot of you still think of the #Fediverse as just “Mastodon”.
-
@Mark_Harbinger@mastodon.social Find a Lemmy or Piefed server and do the following:
- Hit the search bar.
- Type the topic you want—movies, photography, whatever.
- Look for results that start with
!. That’s a community. Example:!movies@lemmy.worldor!movies@piefed.social. - Click in, hit subscribe, and you’re set.
@atomicpoet @Mark_Harbinger I don't get it. I'm finding a lemmy server direct from a search engine in a browser. Eventually, by selecting Lemmy Community Explorer (instead of fediverse observer (??) ), found some communities with ! but there's no subscribe. No wait. You have to open sidebar. ok. Subscribe -> put in my Mastodon instance -> The page you are looking for isn't here.
-
@atomicpoet @Mark_Harbinger I don't get it. I'm finding a lemmy server direct from a search engine in a browser. Eventually, by selecting Lemmy Community Explorer (instead of fediverse observer (??) ), found some communities with ! but there's no subscribe. No wait. You have to open sidebar. ok. Subscribe -> put in my Mastodon instance -> The page you are looking for isn't here.
@lippyduck @Mark_Harbinger Hold on. You’re trying to subscribe from your Mastodon account? -
@lippyduck @Mark_Harbinger Hold on. You’re trying to subscribe from your Mastodon account?
...right...?
-
...right...?
@Mark_Harbinger @lippyduck Mastodon doesn’t officially support communities yet, and treats them almost like user accounts. You could subscribe but you’d have to replace the `!` with `@`, and functionality would be limited. That’s why I ask. -
@Mark_Harbinger @lippyduck Mastodon doesn’t officially support communities yet, and treats them almost like user accounts. You could subscribe but you’d have to replace the `!` with `@`, and functionality would be limited. That’s why I ask.
@atomicpoet @Mark_Harbinger Ah. I feel it was fair to assume it would work on Mastodon since it was posted on Mastodon. Thanks for clarifying. Didn't particularly want to subscribe to anything but thought it was time to see how it actually worked.
-
@atomicpoet @Mark_Harbinger Ah. I feel it was fair to assume it would work on Mastodon since it was posted on Mastodon. Thanks for clarifying. Didn't particularly want to subscribe to anything but thought it was time to see how it actually worked.
@lippyduck@mstdn.social @Mark_Harbinger@mastodon.social Actually, this wasn’t posted on Mastodon at all—I don’t use Mastodon. I use Akkoma.
You’re seeing it on your Mastodon account because Mastodon isn’t a closed system. It’s part of the Fediverse, which lets different platforms talk to each other. So my messages don’t “work on Mastodon”—you’re receiving them because Mastodon and Akkoma can communicate.
Same idea with Lemmy and Piefed. They’re not Mastodon add-ons. They’re their own platforms that can talk across the Fediverse.
-
@lippyduck@mstdn.social @Mark_Harbinger@mastodon.social Actually, this wasn’t posted on Mastodon at all—I don’t use Mastodon. I use Akkoma.
You’re seeing it on your Mastodon account because Mastodon isn’t a closed system. It’s part of the Fediverse, which lets different platforms talk to each other. So my messages don’t “work on Mastodon”—you’re receiving them because Mastodon and Akkoma can communicate.
Same idea with Lemmy and Piefed. They’re not Mastodon add-ons. They’re their own platforms that can talk across the Fediverse.
@atomicpoet @Mark_Harbinger Right. Funny I didn't twig that you aren't on Mastodon though I see why. I'm familiar with the concept of Fediverse and some of the other systems/applications out there. I thought your post would be an opportunity to try it in practice.
-
@atomicpoet @Mark_Harbinger Right. Funny I didn't twig that you aren't on Mastodon though I see why. I'm familiar with the concept of Fediverse and some of the other systems/applications out there. I thought your post would be an opportunity to try it in practice.
@lippyduck@mstdn.social @Mark_Harbinger@mastodon.social Ah! Well, if you’d like to see this in practice, here’s a post that originates on my Akkoma server. Notice the handle tagged at the end:
https://atomicpoet.org/@atomicpoet/posts/AxmB7zcsrlJkcH5mL2
Which resulted in the post being crossposted to Piefed:
https://piefed.social/post/1215534
Which automagically gets federated to Lemmy:
https://a.lemmy.world/lemmy.world/c/videogames@piefed.social
You can also see it on mastodon.social if you search for
@videogames@piefed.social—but it won’t look as nice as on Piefed or Lemmy. -
@lippyduck@mstdn.social @Mark_Harbinger@mastodon.social Ah! Well, if you’d like to see this in practice, here’s a post that originates on my Akkoma server. Notice the handle tagged at the end:
https://atomicpoet.org/@atomicpoet/posts/AxmB7zcsrlJkcH5mL2
Which resulted in the post being crossposted to Piefed:
https://piefed.social/post/1215534
Which automagically gets federated to Lemmy:
https://a.lemmy.world/lemmy.world/c/videogames@piefed.social
You can also see it on mastodon.social if you search for
@videogames@piefed.social—but it won’t look as nice as on Piefed or Lemmy.@atomicpoet @Mark_Harbinger Very impressive. Thanks.
-
@atomicpoet @Mark_Harbinger Very impressive. Thanks.
Agreed. Much appreciated for the explainer
However, the fediverse is also still a techno-feudal fiefdom (run by various admins).
That there is a plurality of instances and admins is a mitigating factor for the worst symptoms of technofeudalism; but it isn't *necessarily* any more indicative of democratic values (free speech, representation) that Bluesky or even Xitter.
If we ever get democracy back, it will have to include (truly) public-owned and -run Social Media.
-
Agreed. Much appreciated for the explainer
However, the fediverse is also still a techno-feudal fiefdom (run by various admins).
That there is a plurality of instances and admins is a mitigating factor for the worst symptoms of technofeudalism; but it isn't *necessarily* any more indicative of democratic values (free speech, representation) that Bluesky or even Xitter.
If we ever get democracy back, it will have to include (truly) public-owned and -run Social Media.
@Mark_Harbinger@mastodon.social @lippyduck@mstdn.social There’s actually a few co-operatively owned Fediverse servers operating. I, myself, am starting one up for PeerTube.
No matter how you slice it, there is a cost for running a Fediverse server. Which is also true of anything on the Internet. And also life.
-
@Mark_Harbinger@mastodon.social @lippyduck@mstdn.social There’s actually a few co-operatively owned Fediverse servers operating. I, myself, am starting one up for PeerTube.
No matter how you slice it, there is a cost for running a Fediverse server. Which is also true of anything on the Internet. And also life.
@Mark_Harbinger@mastodon.social @lippyduck@mstdn.social Ultimately, calling the Fediverse “a techno-feudal fiefdom” is just lazy.
If you’ve got the technical chops, you can run your own server. A Raspberry Pi and a bit of time is all it takes. If you don’t, you can still join a co-op and have a real say in governance.
Let’s not ignore the obvious. You’re posting from a non-profit’s server—kept alive almost entirely by donations. That’s the opposite of feudalism.
I’ve written more about this here:
-
@Mark_Harbinger@mastodon.social @lippyduck@mstdn.social Ultimately, calling the Fediverse “a techno-feudal fiefdom” is just lazy.
If you’ve got the technical chops, you can run your own server. A Raspberry Pi and a bit of time is all it takes. If you don’t, you can still join a co-op and have a real say in governance.
Let’s not ignore the obvious. You’re posting from a non-profit’s server—kept alive almost entirely by donations. That’s the opposite of feudalism.
I’ve written more about this here:
Respectfully, I can afford to be lazy when you make my point for me. How does 'running your own server' refute techno-feudalism? That's the very definition of it.
A collection of people all talking from within their bespoke 'individually owned' rooms isn't the same as a public square.
Co-ops and NFPs are all well and good and can be a valuable counter-measure. But the opposite of private is public, not 'lots and lots of more private instances'...
-
Respectfully, I can afford to be lazy when you make my point for me. How does 'running your own server' refute techno-feudalism? That's the very definition of it.
A collection of people all talking from within their bespoke 'individually owned' rooms isn't the same as a public square.
Co-ops and NFPs are all well and good and can be a valuable counter-measure. But the opposite of private is public, not 'lots and lots of more private instances'...
@Mark_Harbinger@mastodon.social @lippyduck@mstdn.social If by “public” you mean government-owned servers—yes, those exist. The EU itself runs an official Mastodon instance:
But if by “public” you mean government-run servers where every citizen can freely register—that’s something people in a democracy need to demand. And some have. The snag is validation: governments are risk-averse and won’t roll this out without real political pressure.
Still, the technology makes it entirely feasible. Which is why calling the Fediverse “techno-feudal” misses the point—unless you believe that only government-operated platforms count as public space.
I don’t share that belief. Governments aren’t necessarily interested in running a public square.
-
R ActivityRelay shared this topic
-
@Mark_Harbinger@mastodon.social @lippyduck@mstdn.social If by “public” you mean government-owned servers—yes, those exist. The EU itself runs an official Mastodon instance:
But if by “public” you mean government-run servers where every citizen can freely register—that’s something people in a democracy need to demand. And some have. The snag is validation: governments are risk-averse and won’t roll this out without real political pressure.
Still, the technology makes it entirely feasible. Which is why calling the Fediverse “techno-feudal” misses the point—unless you believe that only government-operated platforms count as public space.
I don’t share that belief. Governments aren’t necessarily interested in running a public square.
Just as a basic matter: Government owned and operated = "public". Yes, that's the definition. Neither of our beliefs, yours or mine, are relevant, btw. That's the definition.
The idea of what any particular government might or might not be interested in, politically, is a separate question.
-
Just as a basic matter: Government owned and operated = "public". Yes, that's the definition. Neither of our beliefs, yours or mine, are relevant, btw. That's the definition.
The idea of what any particular government might or might not be interested in, politically, is a separate question.
@Mark_Harbinger @lippyduck You’re flat-out wrong if you think “public” only means government-owned.
In the corporate world, a public company is a company listed on a stock exchange, with shares that anyone can buy and sell. That’s why Apple, Microsoft, and Toyota are all called public companies—they’re subject to SEC filings, shareholder votes, and disclosure rules precisely because they’re open to public investment.
Meanwhile, in the government sector, public refers to state-owned institutions like schools, hospitals, and broadcasters.
And outside those spheres, the word just means open and accessible: public parks, public events, public records.
Your definition fits in one narrow lane, but it collapses everywhere else. Language depends on context, and in finance, “public company” is the industry-standard term worldwide.
Pretending otherwise is like insisting “bank” only ever means the side of a river—technically possible, but absurd in practice. -
@Mark_Harbinger @lippyduck You’re flat-out wrong if you think “public” only means government-owned.
In the corporate world, a public company is a company listed on a stock exchange, with shares that anyone can buy and sell. That’s why Apple, Microsoft, and Toyota are all called public companies—they’re subject to SEC filings, shareholder votes, and disclosure rules precisely because they’re open to public investment.
Meanwhile, in the government sector, public refers to state-owned institutions like schools, hospitals, and broadcasters.
And outside those spheres, the word just means open and accessible: public parks, public events, public records.
Your definition fits in one narrow lane, but it collapses everywhere else. Language depends on context, and in finance, “public company” is the industry-standard term worldwide.
Pretending otherwise is like insisting “bank” only ever means the side of a river—technically possible, but absurd in practice.Okay, as you've noted, words can have more than one meaning.
Yes "public" can mean various things. "Public" was also the name of Emm Gryner's 1998 album. And these various meanings do include 'owned by stockholders' in the private sector. None of which matters in this discussion.
What I am talking about is the public sector. I thought the context of the thread was clue enough as to which definition I was referring to.
Anyway, this might help:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_sector#Infrastructure -
Okay, as you've noted, words can have more than one meaning.
Yes "public" can mean various things. "Public" was also the name of Emm Gryner's 1998 album. And these various meanings do include 'owned by stockholders' in the private sector. None of which matters in this discussion.
What I am talking about is the public sector. I thought the context of the thread was clue enough as to which definition I was referring to.
Anyway, this might help:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_sector#Infrastructure@Mark_Harbinger @lippyduck Calling something “public and democratic” just because it’s government-owned is self-evidently ridiculous.
If that were true, then the CIA would somehow be “public and democratic.”
Your logic collapses under its own weight. -
@Mark_Harbinger @lippyduck Calling something “public and democratic” just because it’s government-owned is self-evidently ridiculous.
If that were true, then the CIA would somehow be “public and democratic.”
Your logic collapses under its own weight.Uh-huh. We've now reached the point where you are arguing with yourself—so I'll leave you to it.
-
Uh-huh. We've now reached the point where you are arguing with yourself—so I'll leave you to it.
