This magazine is dedicated to discussions on the federated social networking ecosystem, which includes decentralized and open-source social media platforms. Whether you are a user, developer, or simply interested in the concept of decentralized social media, this is the place for you. Here you can share your knowledge, ask questions, and engage in discussions on topics such as the benefits and challenges of decentralized social media, new and existing federated platforms, and more. From the latest developments and trends to ethical considerations and the future of federated social media, this category covers a wide range of topics related to the Fediverse.
It's telling that most of their problems were regulatory/legal rather than technical. (they only have one bullet point about "a bunch of techy stuff".)
But the whole article has a very strong "how do you do, fellow kids?" vibe. I think the fediverse will manage to survive without the Financial Times' mastodon server.
There's also the point about upgrades and storage growing exponentially, which is one of the most recurring complaints about running a fediverse server. Even the ones that are can lighter than mastodon have to contend with huge databases that never stop growing.
but as failed experiments go, this one hasn’t cost anyone $44bn
Zing
Hi-oooooooo
So, this sounds entirely different than what the BBC did, which is close their server to just their journalism accounts. I don't see any issue with that. FT just did it wrong. https://social.bbc/public/local
Really shows you need to do your research and take your time when setting up a community
Respect to them for trying something new, can't blame them for it not working out. Though from the article it doesn't sound like they had any major issue with mastodon or its administration itself - their primary issue was the legal risks, which really should have been considered before launching. It seems disingenuous to use a headline like that when the main problem wasn't the running of the site, but a fear of legal repurcussions that could have been easily seen before making the site. That's my two cents anyway.
It is sad how regulation of social media seems to affect smaller sites more than the big ones. Legal liability looks very different to a company with flocks of lawyers than someone hosting a small server at home.
Mastodon administrators have access to everyone's private messages? Wtf? Is lemmy like that?
Anyone who owns a server can access all the data stored on it, unless the data is end-to-end encrypted. Whether it's mastodon, Lemmy, Facebook, twitter, Gmail, vBulletin, whatever.
If you need to say something that you can't risk anyone else seeing, use an end-to-end encrypted messaging app, or implement encryption yourself using e.g. PGP.
I mean I don't care I'm not saying anything illegal anyway, and I assumed reddit administration could read messages, I'm just surprised. I assumed because of how lemmy started and the whole idea of taking away drastic overreach by admins that private messages would be set up to be... private.
The admins to perform upgrades, monitoring, fixes, etc.. will require root access to the database. That means they can alter all your posts to say *blah blah blah" if they wanted.
Similarly passwords will be encrypted within the database and encryption algorithms have to be able to go in both directions. Normally they need a seed value to start random generation. The admin defines the seed as a result an admin can decrypt everything in the database.
This is incorrect, passwords should be hashed, not encrypted. Hashing is only one way (unless you use a terrible hashing algorithm or your attackers have access to a quantum computer), these hashes are also often salted, which means adding extra data to the hash to protect against some attacks
Lemmy doesn't have private messages, does it? It you want secure messages, use matrix or signal.