Lady of the Land @Lady@cat.family

@aescling *upstream mastodon, which is financed significantly by sponsors and instance operators who do not contribute code

@aescling as opposed to mastodon where most of the money comes from sources other than the instances supplying the development labour

@aescling it would mean glitchcat would offer the development labour it can spare and [some other instance] would offer the development labour it can spare and there would be no central financing of development; glitchcat pays glitchcat devs (your patreon) and other instance pays theirs.

so there is no financial incentive to the project itself; it isn't bringing in money or trying to market itself to new instances; its only obligations are to the instances providing its labour

@witchfynder_finder yeah i almost was like “this author is clearly a girl and not a lesbian if they don't know how obvious this is”

but yes, link does seem to be an enjoyer of the zelda behind, which i mean…

…yeah i can’t fault that interpretation at all

@aescling @Satsuma yeah i just think it is funny that the people who develop mastodon and the people who don’t use mastodon have the same ideas and it is not at all the same as the ideas of the people who actually use mastodon

@aescling @Satsuma having instances be bland interchangable spaces with some community features layered on top as opposed to like, what darius describes in run your own social

@aescling which is hilarious because @Satsuma and i have been having conversations with people in fandom coders who are like “this is the way it should be” and all being like No You Don’t Understand Nobody On Mastodon Wants That

@aescling groups were originally a GNU social feature which used bangtags like !tea, i think working similar to how guppe groups operate now

mastodon staunchly refused to implement them

around the time when pleroma development was really kicking off i remember there were a lot of discussion about alternative ways of thinking of groups, but my understanding is that those discussions never went anywhere because there wasn’t good consensus on how they should be federated or administrated; i know @nightpool@cybre.space was involved in those discussions although i don’t know if they remember / want to say more

anyway this is very interesting because that blog post makes it sound like there is a Plan For Groups and i sure haven’t heard anything… is this being coordinated with other fediverse softwares? was there ever a consensus? am i just out of the loop?

@aescling eugen has opposed groups from day 1 so i am very interested in hearing more about this

@aescling wait “groups”?!?!?!?!!

@aescling i don't actually like the label platformist, but it's a better vernacular descriptor than any of its adjectives; i feel like i’m probably actually closer to especifist thought but that word belongs to a very particular political context

in any case the purpose of having a platform is it means you can tell the labels to take a hike (unlike synthesist anarchism where the label is the only thing binding you together)