Back

@aral

We want the Fediverse to be healthy
We believe a healthy Fediverse is able to support free expression while also giving individuals and providers choice over what they’re exposed to. Want a service with inbuilt fact-checks? Or one that is focused on fighting abuse and harassment? Or one that recommends content that corresponds with your faith or personal interests? You should have that choice. And there’s some types of content – spam, violence and illegal sexual content – that no one needs to see. We want to make sure people have the tools they need to filter them out.

We want the Fediverse to be financially viable
The Fediverse cannot thrive without people building clients or running providers. And to do those things, they need money. Whether that’s advertising supported, or funded by charities and non-profits, or based on paid-for services, or affiliate revenue, we are working to find ways that companies can do well in the Fediverse.

@renchap
Mastodon gGmbH is listed as a partner of the #SocialWebFoundation!
The mission of SWF does not match, if not contradicts the purpose and object of the gGmbH.
In my point of view this is the beginning of "embrace, extend and extinguish" of #activitypub like we saw with #xmpp

@aral @TomWellborn

@goetz @aral @TomWellborn Yes, we are a partner / member / supporter / … of the SocialWebFoundation, as I said above, because we think such an organisation is needed for the Fediverse to grow. We are not involved in the Foundation creation, or it's management, neither we have partnered with Meta about anything.

@renchap @goetz So you are a partner of Social Web Foundation and Meta is a partner of Social Web Foundation but you have not partnered with Meta. You’re just both listed under the partners section but aren’t partners. Am I getting that right?

@aral @goetz Mastodon supports the SWF foundation. They call us partners because of this support at launch I guess. I have no idea what relationship they have with Meta. And there is no relationship between Mastodon and Meta.
Similarly, Meta is a W3C member, Mastodon participates to some W3C meetings about ActivityPub.

@renchap @goetz Do you guys seriously not get why Meta wants to be on there and what it means for Meta to be on there? You’re whitewashing them. You’re telling people “they can’t be that bad… Mastodon would never partner with them if they were that bad.” I mean, do you really not see this?