operations-mediawiki-config VS Mastodon

> Configuration is just a short artifact. It's not a creative work and is therefore not copyrightable at all, whether by AGPL or otherwise.

I'm doubtful. For example https://github.com/wikimedia/operations-mediawiki-config is wikipedia's config. It is not short, and much of it is complex enough i think it would be copyrightable (ianal)

I agree though a very traditional list of key value pairs that are simple facts like where to find the db, might lack creativity to be copyrighted (ianal). But how many real deployed systems have that simple a config. More generally i would prefer that the license was less ambigious about this especially in an international context (e.g. rules are totally different in uk over what can be copyrighted)

> I'm not convinced obscurity helps against spam at all. DKIM and blocklists have done much more against email spam than any form of "security by obscurity" corporate scheme has.

Gmail et al use techniques beyond dkim that are secret. However i meant more like web spam where you can't just rely on source vouching for users. For example on wikipedia there is a feature where admins can write "code" that block patterns in edits. When used against persistent vandals, they are often secret lest they use the info to adjust behaviour. That's the type of thing i mean.

> if you are coordinating with the developers, then you have their explicit permission to temporarily withhold those changes (AGPL copyright holders can still grant exceptions to the license)

That only works if one entity holds all the copyright. Even then, does that mean forks cannot have coordinated disclosure?

Interestingly there is some discussion for Mastodon with people asking the limit to be smaller, which raises the question as to the purpose of alt text, and how to properly handle larger text lengths in screen reader programs.

https://github.com/mastodon/mastodon/issues/12268

Through the Fast Forward program, we give free services and support to open source projects and the nonprofits that support them. We support many of the world’s top programming languages (like Python, Rust, Ruby, and the wonderful Scratch), foundational technologies (cURL, the Linux kernel, Kubernetes, OpenStreetMap), and projects that make the internet better and more fun for everyone (Inkscape, Mastodon, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Terms of Service; Didn’t Read).

Mastodon DMs have absolutely no privacy: https://github.com/mastodon/mastodon/issues/18079

For a decentralized protocol doing things right is much more important than doing things fast, it is very difficult (and in a lot of cases impossible) to break backwards compatibility.

Postmortem on what happened here: https://news.ycombinator.com/edit?id=39305884

The v1 API of Mastodon limits the size of the tree that it will expand for users who are not logged into the server: https://github.com/mastodon/mastodon/blob/main/app/controllers/api/v1/statuses_controller.rb . I am guessing that this or some similar limit applies to threads being returned to unauthenticated users of the web UI. It just arbitrarily stops expanding the replies at some point, including the main thread from the OP.

If a thread is truncated, users expect it to expand automatically and autoscroll when you hit the bottom. In my desktop browser, that does not occur, and there is no indication that there is more to see. This is the situation of the web interface as of Mastodon version 4.2.5.

The issue is very sensitive to observer conditions. If you are logged into the server, the behavior is different. If you use a Mastodon app instead of the web, the behavior might be different. As the tree expands, the cutoffs become different. If you look at the thread on a different Mastodon server, the tree is different because every server has its own view of the Fediverse.

HN needs a best practice for linking to Mastodon threads in a way that provides a consistent experience to HN readers. The average Mastodon server would be crushed by hundreds of HN readers grabbing the entirety of a huge thread all at once, so this might involve some thread-unroll-and-cache service. I tried https://mastoreader.io/ but it did not solve the problem.

Alternately, we push changes into the Mastodon web UI to warn users when they need to click to see more and assume that people will get used to the navigation.

Suggestions?

Fixed in Mastodon v4.2.5 https://github.com/mastodon/mastodon/releases/tag/v4.2.5

>You can defeat the Affero clause by putting the software behind a proxy, for example

Could someone elaborate on this? This is NOT my understanding of the license, and it seems absurd considering e.g. Mastodon is AGPL but the standard install requires a reverse proxy[1]. If using a proxy defeats Affero, why would the Mastodon team do this? Are they stupid?

[1] https://github.com/mastodon/mastodon/blob/main/dist/nginx.co...

Mastodon is free and open-source. Go ahead and add the flag:

https://github.com/mastodon/mastodon/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING....

Didn't say anything about freedom of speech. And again: I'm not the one to talk to. I don't have any strong feelings on the topic, but if you do, you should take it somewhere that people who can do something about it will see.

I tried to find an existing discussion to help get you started, but couldn't. You can start one here: https://github.com/mastodon/mastodon/issues

It's easy to sit here on Hacker News and say "they should just..."

Coming up with a standard for an international project will be a long, noisy discussion. You'll tread on internecine conflicts you had no idea about. Old wounds from past related discussions will come out. People will soapbox.

This is why I have no interest in discussing it. It probably won't go anywhere in a place where it actually could. It definitely won't here.