Benvenuto nel Poliverso

Felix Hlatky

20 ore fa • •

I want to expand on the age-verification working group plan, to avoid confusion. The goal is to create an informal group of experts in the areas of law, privacy, trust & safety, and technology. Their agenda is explicitly not to _implement_ age verification/assurance, neither in the Mastodon software nor in our own servers. The group will assess various risks for the user base, the server admins, and the project and analyse it from different perspectives to provide a balanced recommendation.

Mastodon

2026-02-17 16:25:13

Today we're sharing the first in a series of three posts from our leadership team, starting with @mellifluousbox discussing our mission, and priorities for 2026. Stay tuned this week for more.
blog.joinmastodon.org/2026/02/…

Connecting the world through thriving online communities
A message from our Executive Director about Mastodon's vision and mission.
^{Mastodon Blog}

reshared this

in reply to Felix Hlatky

Neil Brown

in reply to Felix Hlatky • 18 ore fa • •

This is a very sensible initiative.

in reply to Felix Hlatky

Ret

in reply to Felix Hlatky • 18 ore fa (Ricevuto 14 ore fa) • •

Sensitive content

in reply to Ret

FLOSSbOxIN

in reply to Ret • 18 ore fa (Ricevuto 14 ore fa) • •

@ret Exactly. If you form a committee, it will never be balanced, and the trouble is, this nonsense will crop inside, like every other senseless stuff that gets in. Just SAY NO and DO NOT PUSH it. That is as simple as that, like KISS.

@Ret

Questa voce è stata modificata (17 ore fa)

in reply to FLOSSbOxIN

Niko Trimmel

in reply to FLOSSbOxIN • 18 ore fa (Ricevuto 15 ore fa) • •

@fbinin @ret "we want to assess the risks these laws pose for our company, server admins and users" - "noooo, you can't do that, we want you to bankrupt yourself and go to prison! Knowing about the risks of violating laws would prevent that!" @mellifluousbox

@Felix Hlatky @Ret @FLOSSbOxIN

in reply to Niko Trimmel

FLOSSbOxIN

in reply to Niko Trimmel • 18 ore fa (Ricevuto 16 ore fa) • •

@nitrml @ret
Software does not come under that part, only a server, and in fediverse, this should not come into picture at all, as there isn't one server. We already have block servers option in place. Do we really think this will? Rethink please!!! Law makers around the world are crazy people having no other work but to "justify their salary" by doing crap and pushing crappy nonsense. Users are not their first, neither their last priority.

@Niko Trimmel @Ret

Questa voce è stata modificata (18 ore fa)

in reply to FLOSSbOxIN

Neil Brown

in reply to FLOSSbOxIN • 18 ore fa • •

@fbinin @nitrml @ret
Different people clearly will have different perspectives on this.

Some - mostly, but not exclusively, larger - federated / FOSS-based service operators are interested in understanding the landscape here, and indeed some have engaged with regulators about it.

If nothing else, a mapping exercise seems pretty sensible.

@Niko Trimmel @Ret @FLOSSbOxIN

in reply to Neil Brown

FLOSSbOxIN

in reply to Neil Brown • 18 ore fa • •

@neil @nitrml @ret
No trouble on mapping, but I have been seeing things. 10 heads, no answer, 1000 heads, of course one Greek bench answer: NO.
Gist: map, see, but stay focused on NOT implementing it at all.

@Neil Brown @Niko Trimmel @Ret

⇧