this post was submitted on 13 Jan 2025
1723 points (99.4% liked)

Technology

67987 readers
3518 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
technopagan@lemmy.world
L4s@lemmy.world
L3s@hackingne.ws
1723
Mastodon’s founder cedes control, refuses to become next Musk or Zuckerberg (arstechnica.com)
submitted 2 months ago by some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org to c/technology@lemmy.world
237 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

His grand vision remains to leave Mastodon users in control of the social network, making their own decisions about what content is allowed or what appears in their timelines.

I don't use Mastadon cause I don't care for micro-blogging, but nevertheless, I like this.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] viking@infosec.pub 15 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Someone is still in charge of the git account. No matter how many commits there are being made, unless the owner of the repo approves to merge them, it's not happening.

And sure, someone could create a fork that includes their changes if they aren't being merged, but then this separate fork might at some point lose compatibility with the original software. And on a purely semantic note, this fork wouldn't be the original mastodon either.

[–] lime@feddit.nu 7 points 2 months ago (2 children)

its an org, it can have multiple owners.

[–] viking@infosec.pub 7 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Once it is an organization, yes, that's the whole point. Right now it is still an individual, that's the point I was trying to make.

[–] lime@feddit.nu 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

no it's not? https://github.com/orgs/mastodon/people

unless we're talking about different things?

[–] viking@infosec.pub 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

That's a virtual structure in github, not a legal construct. Those organisations have owners (minimum 2), but if they collude and go rogue, they can do quite a lot of harm. (See also https://docs.github.com/en/organizations/managing-peoples-access-to-your-organization-with-roles/roles-in-an-organization).

A formally incorporated nonprofit organization has statutes, organs, supervisory boards and all that by which they must adhere, so once set up properly, the software would be fully protected from malicious intent on a legal level.

[–] lime@feddit.nu 0 points 2 months ago

...but you were talking about the git project in the parent comment? the rest of the thread is about company structure.

[–] sunzu2@thebrainbin.org 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Noj profit does not have owners per se, but it is still controlled by somebody

[–] lime@feddit.nu 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I was thinking specifically about the github.

[–] sunzu2@thebrainbin.org 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Ain't he putting it under a non profit structure?

[–] lime@feddit.nu 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

dunno. they were talking about git so i was assuming we were talking about git.