• Tor is optimized for accessing the regular internet anonymously. It uses onion routing with a small number of long-lived relays, and you exit back to the clearnet through an exit node. Hidden services (now called onion services) exist, but they’re secondary to Tor’s main use case.
• I2P is designed primarily for internal services (called eepsites, torrents, chat, etc.) inside the I2P network itself. It doesn’t rely on exits the way Tor does. It uses garlic routing (a variant of onion routing with bundled messages), and every participant is both a client and a router, making it more peer-to-peer.

In my experience, if you have anything but "Network: OK" status (for example, "Network: Firewalled"), it's not working properly. If you're behind a VPN, you need to port-forward and properly configure a port in I2P config/settings. Another sign that it's misconfigured is 0 participating tunnels. This is how properly configured I2P network statistics looks like with high internet bandwidth:

::: spoiler spoiler

:::

Yeah, the soccer industry is full of some of the scummiest people on earth.

There's a lot of money to be made off of idiots who don't know any better for doing pretty much nothing.

We are focusing on mastodon.social because you jumped on a thread about mastodon.social confirming they won't be complying with Mississippi's age verification law, which in turn is a follow up to coverage of Bluesky doing the same thing. And also because Eugen Rochko jumped into that announcement to claim that Bluesky stepping away from that territory was an example of how Fedi's wider decentralization was an advantage, even though it turned out to no be an advantage at all.

Why would we be talking about anything else? That's literally the topic. You may be looking for a different thread. If anything, the uncontrolled impulse to talk about the ways in which AP is more decentralized than AT whether that's relevant to the conversation or not is the exact communication mistake Eugen made. Which makes doing that again even weirder.

To be clear, it doesn't matter where your instance is hosted. Mastodon.social is not hosted in Mississippi, either, it's hosted in Berlin. You're still taking on a TON of potential liability if you don't comply with their age verification or block that territory from access if the law stays in the books, just like you're risking a ton of liability if you breach GDPR even if your site isn't in the EU.

The title says Mastodon, not mastodon.social, and it appears that Eugen was talking about the Fediverse or Mastodon, not mastodon.social specifically (hence the word decentralization, the discussion was not centralized on mastodon.social).

I think people are mixing up the discussion between Mastodon vs mastodon.social too much. Eugen and his non-profit are the developers of Mastodon, so it makes sense for them to be talking it up.

“One of the reasons Mastodon was founded was to allow different jurisdictions to have social media that is independent of the U.S.,” per the statement shared with TechCrunch. “People are free to choose to have their account on a Mastodon server whose policies meet their needs.”

That quote from the article does NOT say mastodon.social

To be clear, it doesn’t matter where your instance is hosted. Mastodon.social is not hosted in Mississippi, either, it’s hosted in Berlin.

There are other countries... watch and see how many instances just ignore the law, there will be many in the Fediverse.

I mean Pirate Bay is still running lol, so yeah I think decentralization works

No, the article is about Mastodon.social's nonprofit following up with an official statement after not responding when approached about the original report.

Eugen himself was just shitting on Bluesky, his entire comment was that Bluesky leaving showed "why true decentralization is important". Ironically, that whole pissing match ended up hinging about how much Eugen was focusing on Bluesky rather than their protocol, too. Turns out to be a popular deflection and it turns out to not change anything practical.

You are retroactively trying to reinterpret the subject matter here to save face and I'm too tired right this minute to entertain it. We don't have to have a conversation, man, no hard feelings, but if you insist on having one here I'd appreciate if it wasn't about something else entirely.

No, the article is about Mastodon.social’s nonprofit

Are you talking about Mastodon gGmbH? joinmastodon.org/de/about

Mastodon gGmbH is a non-profit from Germany that develops the Mastodon software. Mastodon started in 2016 as an open-source project by Eugen Rochko

github.com/mastodon

Mastodon gGmbH is a German non-profit developing a decentralized social network

The company behind Mastodon

Our story, mission, annual reports, interviews, press releases and more.

^{joinmastodon.org}

Yeah, Mastodon gGmbH also hosts mastodon.social, as far as I can tell. Or... I mean, at least that's the address and company info they show in mastodon.social's about page (not Mastodon, but mastodon.social, there are two separate About pages, both reference Mastodon's gGmbH's address).

The one thing I'll give you is that the statement they issued is talking about Mastodon software overall not having the technical tools to comply with the law in the first place and are explicitly refusing to comment on what mastodon.social will specifically do about it.

Which is irrelevant because, one presumes, if the answer was to build the tools to be able to comply with the age verification law they would have said that and put them into the Mastodon software, not just kept them exclusively for mastodon.social.