My general posting / content philosophy. Not all applies here, but the gist does:
For my own editing use & access:
My general guidance is that content should show respect. For readers, for people, for ideas, for truth.
Mostly for truth.
I'm a huge fan of this One Amazing Trick to Revolutionise Social Networks: Block Fuckwits.
And yes, sometimes I'm the fuckwit. Mastodon's Mute and Block features are useful, make use of them. I will, and have.
I'm also aware that individual actions aren't sufficient in all instances. But they're a start.
I've experimented with "index" and "wiki" posts at Ello. Respectively:
You might find some nuggets buried in there. Or turds.
Atom feed: https://firstname.lastname@example.org
Updating the animated avatars situation: animations are now disabled by default.
Q: So, who's Edward Morbius?
Mastodon User Guide: https://github.com/tootsuite/mastodon/blob/master/docs/Using-Mastodon/User-guide.md
@email@example.com has compiled a brief introductory guide: https://github.com/nolanlawson/resources-for-mastodon-newbies#readme
Q: Why are all these bots following me?
A: Mastodon and GNU Social are /federated/ network with many individual servers. Only toots from profiles followed by someone on a given server propogate. "Follow Bots" ensure that more content is spread over more of the network. This may or may not be a good thing. And other bots may have other ideas. I'm not settled on the question myself.
A con argument: https://mastodon.social/users/pan/updates/1697694
For more on bots, followbots, and #nobot:
Q: What's this "Federation thing?"
A: A bunch of communities, on different servers, sharing /some/ but not necessarily /all/ of their traffic. Or, in some cases, none. It depends.
The User Guide has a good section:
Q: What about descriptions of associated networks, Stats / Nodes / Instances / Hubs, etc?
Fediverse visualization: https://kumu.io/wakest/fediverse
Q: Does Federation -- different sites and even networks interconnecting -- mean that there might be the same username in different places?
A: Yes. It's a lot like email in that regard. "rosa.martinez" might exist on, say, Gmail, Hotmail, and Yahoo, but be three separate people. Or two the same and one different. You've got to check.
Q: How private is Mastodon / GNU Social?
A: Not very. Use email, XMPP, or other secure, encrypted protocols if you need privacy.
@dredmorbius It would be cool if that could also work for hashtags :thumbsup:
@dredmorbius OSHA would have a field day with the lack of handrails. It's no wonder most alien civilizations have disappeared!
@dredmorbius Thanks for the introduction. Of course I'd heard of the film but never saw a moment of it. 'Tis amazingly modern in visual composition and score for its time.
@dredmorbius now i see!
@dredmorbius That means using up 7 characters (incl a space) of your profile to fend off stalkerbots
@shivvi It does. I'm trying to capture information here for reference (and am hoping it doesn't age out too quickly).
@dredmorbius Some people don't like self promotion... I want to make sure nobody's offended
@dredmorbius and any bot that does not behave should be reported to your instance admin and to me so we can warn the offender and ban if needed !
@lambadalambda @dredmorbius @tuxhedoh The ridiculous thing to me is the fact people are using follow bots to begin with. Just grab the atom feed URLs and have the local mastodon instance populate the federation feeds with that. No need to notify anyone you're following them, which is really what is causing this pointless dramatics people are having. Out of all the arguments people are having, they don't point out the flawed implementation.
Here's an interesting response to the followbot problem:
Unlike previous followbots that actively follows everyone they find on other instances, this bot /passively/ wait for people from other instances to follow it, and then the bot will boost the "most popular" posts from those other instances.
An "ambassador bot", if you will…
@dredmorbius @vhf Interesting. I did not understand that if someone is not followed by *anyone* on an instance, then *none* of their tweets appear in the federated timeline. So the "federated timeline" is only those users who have some connection to your instance. This means that the larger instances (ex. mastodon.social, mastodon.cloud) will have a bigger and richer federated timeline by virtue of having more people who will follow others on other instances.
That's where the follow-bot concept strikes me as potentially badly misguided. It directly disrupts the selection and filtering behaviour of organic following.
It's not clear to me that it's possible to readily distinguish bot from non-bot traffic.
@dredmorbius And that should be OK, it's just the way it works in real life. Same name, different persona, different context. What makes me like Mastodon even more is this anonymity; allows for freedom of expression.
@arinbasu Understood. My documentation here is about what it /is/, not whether it is /ok/.
Helping people understand the system behaviour, such that they're not surprised by it.
@dredmorbius At the future, how can we know if, let say, firstname.lastname@example.org, is the official account of Ducati representative rather that the fake one, let say, email@example.com?
@hanung665 You'd have to get out-of-band verification, or a specific denial.
There was a profile claiming to be a co-founder of Mastodon yesterday. It looked and smelled funny, I did some investigation. Eventually Gargron made a statement that there was no such thing.
The account's toots started disappearing, and someone claimed that it had been stolen from him (or copied, not sure which).
It becomes a test of truth -- consistency and correspondence are strong tip-offs.
@hanung665 Wikipedia's Criteria of Truth page lists various tests, some better than others.
"[T[here seem to be only three functional, effective tests of truth[:] correspondence, coherence and pragmatic."
"Pragmatic" is "is the knowledge useful in application?"
"Correspondence" is "does the knowledge correspond with that it describes?"
"Coherence" is "are all pertinent facts arranged in a consistent and cohesive fashion as an integrated whole?"
@hanung665 There's also the consistency tests: do the claims not contradict one another, and relate in a logical fashion. You might consider this a /rational/ test of truth. It's useful, but incomplete. Often it's all we have to go on, though, and it can be leveraged in useful ways.
Generalistic and moderated instance.