His grand vision remains to leave Mastodon users in control of the social network, making their own decisions about what content is allowed or what appears in their timelines.

I don’t use Mastadon cause I don’t care for micro-blogging, but nevertheless, I like this.

  • stinerman@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    68
    ·
    2 days ago

    It was never controlled by a single person to begin with.

    The computer program called Mastodon was (and still is for now) completely controlled by Eugen Rochko. In the future it will be controlled by a non-profit.

    See this and this for more info.

    • naught101@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      In as much as FOSS can be forked, it’s not really completely controlled (and there are a number of active mastodon forks that federate fine with standard mastodon servers)

      • stinerman@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        24 hours ago

        Of course you can fork it, but you can’t call it Mastodon. That’s trademarked. Just like how you can fork Firefox but have to call it Waterfox or Iceweasel or Librewolf.

        The confusion here is between Mastodon the company and Mastodon the software and instances of the running software. Eugen Rochko owns the first two. He also owns the instances mastodon.social and mastodon.online. Everything else is outside of his control.

        • naught101@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          13 hours ago

          Sure, but I think that’s far less important than in a walled garden situation…

          I guess this is why a lot of people insist on the focus being on the fediverse, with mastodon as just one flagship. That means if the brand goes to shit the ecosystem can just keep operating.