yeah i think i'm gonna never touch loops or pixelfed lmao what garbage

Ivy [_gay] Mae :fire_trans:

@ada what happened?

:neobot_book: *Ada, neptunyl⁷-hydroxide :neptune:

@[email protected] threatened to take down the work of an unofficial third party client, added anti-fork rules to their ToS and other anti-reverse engineering stipulations. offered a job to the person making said third-party client. they blocked all communication after she (the 3rd party client maintainer) protested the ads and they cancelled her job offer.

https://social.besties.house/@h/113730817127762032
https://social.besties.house/@h/113730903264902154

Asta [AMP]

@[email protected] @[email protected] he wants... the ability to run ads? To the point where he's claiming "TOS violations"?? What the fuck??

How in the fuck does a "terms of service" even apply to a software API in the abstract and not, you know, a server running the service? I'm not a legal scholar, but I bet dansup isn't either. What the fuck.

Like, misskey has support for running ads on a server, but I don't think the misskey devs are out here threatening to ruin everyone's good time for building clients that don't support them. What the fuck.

Asta [AMP]

@[email protected] @[email protected] https://github.com/joinloops/loops-server

It's fucking AGPL. What in the hell "TOS" is he talking about? Does anyone have a link?

(edit: I'm pointing out the license to show that the code is open so... anyone can just run their own server, unless there's some centralization going on here that I'm missing).

Morgan ⚧️

@aud @ada @ivy should have known a fedi TikTok was too good to be true with ads that's just TikTok

Asta [AMP]

@[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] if I had a nickel for everytime a major fediverse software dev who copied an existing corporate closed source social media model also turned out to be a shithead

funny how they all federate with threads

Asta [AMP]

@[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] they've got such big "the problem with facebook, twitter, and instagram is that I didn't control them and ActivityPub + open source = my chance to be in control" energy.

like, I dunno. Maybe that's not true? But if it's not, whhhhhy in the fuck do they seem to keep doing shitty techbro things despite being given a million chances and gentle nudges to not do that

I get that "open source" as an ideal is near meaningless given its takeover by corporate interests and association with paedophilic libertarian shitheads but that doesn't mean it's just an aesthetic or a little sugar you throw in to make your shitty controlling behavior easier for people to swallow*

* (it clearly is but it shouldn't be)

Asta [AMP]

@[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] people who write software should not run flagship instances. I get why they do that in the beginning (why is someone gonna run your software if they don't know what it is or can't easily use it?) but like ffs if you make a flagship server because that's the way you can get buy in, offload that shit. Make a plan to cede control. You want open source? Fine, but commit to it. Don't "rewrite" PRs, don't steal code, don't block people from contributing and ignore the needs of people. I get that apparently some of these people just have capitalism brain so that's the root of the issue but for ffs.

EDIT: should probably add that it's an issue of the distribution of power and control; there's probably plenty of situations where this is fine. But obviously masotodon.social is not fine and ol "I'm the new Fuckerberg!" here...

Asta [AMP]

@[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] I suspect there's probably an issue when a developer has both a flagship instance and control of the code; if they 'own' both, their incentives are probably not aligned with a 'federated community' so much as just strengthening things they control.

And you know what? That's fine. They wanna work on stuff that improves their own life, that's great. But I don't really think they should be given the social cachet that comes along with "open" in that case. They don't tend to really respond to the needs of what the larger community wants, if history is any indication, and just seem to use their flagship instance as a way to wield control in the network. booooooo.

Ivy [_gay] Mae :fire_trans:

@aud @raphaelmorgan @ada its so annoying seeing this happen, like when I write software I do it with the hope it'll be useful to others and seeing other people use it and extend it in the wild is enough for me

people opening prs is like the pinnacle of that, like someone used and cared about the thing enough to actually put in their own time to improve it and then contribute it back to everyone else, like ??? that's the whole point of all this to me, to make something bigger than myself, its always so annoying to see people screw it up this bad like

Asta [AMP]

@[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] RIGHT?? You can tell people are coming at the idea of open software from totally different viewpoints. I couldn't say what those viewpoints are, but my hypothesis is that some view the PR process as a method of maintaining control and the appearance of authority. Gagron (who finally blocked me lmao; although I will say unlike tech.lgbt, he didn't fucking defederate me just for having an issue with me), who infamously steals code and mental labor by ignoring opened PRs, then writing his own version of what he thinks the code does and going with that one, is a prime example.