this post was submitted on 20 Jun 2025
67 points (95.9% liked)
Technology
71661 readers
3800 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- 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.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I think the fediverse has a built-in legal risk in that any time someone posts, data is sent to a large number of servers when then make it available via the web or sometimes push it to additional servers (e.g. by user boosts or community subscriptions). This is currently done without any explicit license for the IP contained in that post.
I'm inclined to think that irrevocable permissions are the right thing here, in large part because it's impossible to guarantee that any subsequent signal from the original poster propagates to everyone who has a copy of that post, or that the server software responds how someone else expects it will.
I assume most licenses out there are irrevocable? They're certainly a feature of copyleft licenses.
If someone posts copyrighted material they were not allowed to share then 3rd party servers still need to deal with DMCA takedown requests and false reports, regardless of TOS. An explicit license might help but by how much? It may also push some users away.
So CAP theorem says you can have a distributed system with at most two of Consistent, Available, or Partition tolerant. I haven't looked too closely into the federation implementation of Mastodon but I suspect they opted for Available and Partition tolerant (as Consistent and Partition tolerant would mean the entire network goes down when one node does, while Consistent and Available would mean once any node lost contact with the network it could never again rejoin). Since consistency is not guaranteed (and provably can't be) there is absolutely no way to guarantee that deleting something from one instance will remove it from all instances even allowing for a very generous time span.
TL;DR: You're not just right, you're mathematically right.
Mastodon's federation is not at all consistent even when it could get much closer with a little effort.
Servers don't remote fetch old posts from recent follows for example, nor replies to off-server posts from people on a third server. There's work being done on both, but I'm surprised it wasn't prioritized much earlier. Some other Fediverse software handles these situations better.
Mathematically right, the best kind of right.