If a conclusion can be drawn from this y this article I wrote a couple of Sundays ago is that freedom is not free. If we want to retain our right to free expression and the ability to decide what information about us to make public, and to whom, we must ensure that the instruments we use can remain independent.
Just as I once advocated for companies to get involved in open source projects, I was glad Elon Musk bought Twitter. However, just as the first proved to have its negative aspects, I have my suspicions that the freedom of expression that Mr. Musk is willing to put up with has its limits.
I have somewhere in the browser favorites the story of a group of former drivers of a passenger transport platform. Since I can't find it, I can't give more information. But, the summary is this.
In a city in the United States, one of those platforms that allow private drivers to use their vehicles to transport passengers began to operate. There was the typical conflict with the taxi drivers' unions that tried and failed to ban their operation. Over time, the platform wanted to change the conditions harming drivers.
The result? Several of them got together and made their own platform. Over time, the other platform returned to original conditions.
There are many similar platforms and, probably over time, another would have arrived and, with the competition, it is possible that the first one would have also backed down. However, why wait for them to come save us when we can do it ourselves?
freedom is not free
En Linux Adictos My colleagues have written in the past about different decentralized platforms that perform similar functions to Twitter or Facebook. I am going to return once more to the subject, but adding the ways in which we can collaborate with those platforms.
Mastodon
Every time a group gets mad at Twitter, this platform is the one gets the most users. However, this does not seem to last long.
The great advantage of Mastodon is that users are in control of what they receive. Messages are displayed in chronological order and only those from those you've chosen to follow. The allowed contents are: audio, video, images, accessibility descriptions, surveys, content warnings, avatars and emojis.
Since there is no centralized server but a network of servers provided by the community, each has its own moderation rules.
How to collaborate
There are two ways to collaborate with Mastodon. You can manage your own server for which you need a domain name, a virtual private server, an email server and a content hosting provider.
You can also contribute financially. Companies can do it directly with the project while the Patreon platform is available for individual users.
GNU Social
This is a project supported by the Free Software Foundation. The fundamental difference with Mastodon is that it is not an interconnected project. Each installation is independent.
On the project's website there isn't much information about the features and, in fact, the instance in Spanish that they recommend joining if you don't want to install your own server no longer works.
How to collaborate
GNU Social receives economic contributions through the Liberapay platform or by purchasing items in the store.
Diaspora
The project It is similar to Mastodon in that it is made up of a decentralized network of servers. The advantage is that it is possible to share the content with Facebook and Twitter so you do not need to give up followers of both social networks or republish the post.
Two strengths of Diaspora are anonymity (it does not ask for your real name) and privacy. (Does not collect or share data.) It is possible to classify the contacts and decide with whom the content is shared. You just have to register in a network node (They call it pod) and start looking for contacts you want to follow.
How to collaborate
You can collaborate with the project hosting a server, contributing code, supporting new users or providing translations.
excellent project thank you very much