Comment

Comment on Mastodon says it doesn't 'have the means' to comply with age verification laws

The title says Mastodon, not mastodon.social, and it appears that Eugen was talking about the Fediverse or Mastodon, not mastodon.social specifically (hence the word decentralization, the discussion was not centralized on mastodon.social).

I think people are mixing up the discussion between Mastodon vs mastodon.social too much.

source

Sort:hotnew top

MudMan@fedia.io ⁨9⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
No, the article is about Mastodon.social´s nonprofit following up with an official statement after not responding when approached about the original report.

Eugen himself was just shitting on Bluesky, his entire comment was that Bluesky leaving showed "why true decentralization is important". Ironically, that whole pissing match ended up hinging about how much Eugen was focusing on Bluesky rather than their protocol, too. Turns out to be a popular deflection and it turns out to not change anything practical.

You are retroactively trying to reinterpret the subject matter here to save face and I'm too tired right this minute to entertain it. We don't have to have a conversation, man, no hard feelings, but if you insist on having one here I'd appreciate if it wasn't about something else entirely.

source
- Die4Ever@retrolemmy.com ⁨8⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
  
  No, the article is about Mastodon.social’s nonprofit
  
  Are you talking about Mastodon gGmbH? joinmastodon.org/de/about
  
  Mastodon gGmbH is a non-profit from Germany that develops the Mastodon software. Mastodon started in 2016 as an open-source project by Eugen Rochko
  
  github.com/mastodon
  
  source
  - MudMan@fedia.io ⁨2⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
    Yeah, Mastodon gGmbH also hosts mastodon.social, as far as I can tell. Or... I mean, at least that's the address and company info they show in mastodon.social's about page (not Mastodon, but mastodon.social, there are two separate About pages, both reference Mastodon's gGmbH's address).
    
    The one thing I'll give you is that the statement they issued is talking about Mastodon software overall not having the technical tools to comply with the law in the first place and are explicitly refusing to comment on what mastodon.social will specifically do about it.
    
    Which is irrelevant because, one presumes, if the answer was to build the tools to be able to comply with the age verification law they would have said that and put them into the Mastodon software, not just kept them exclusively for mastodon.social.
    
    source