John Oliver promoted alternatives to big tech in last night's episode, including Mastodon and Pixelfed
-
I think that it's just words & images on a screen that we could easily ignore like people did before, and people are indulging a grandiose conceit by thinking that moderation is that important or serves any greater cause than the interests of moderators.
On social media that seems to be to serve the consumers, by which I mean the advertisers & commercial interests who pay for the attention of users.
While the old internet approach of ignoring, gawking at the freakshow, or ridiculing/flaming toxic & hateful shit worked fine then resulting in many people disengaging, ragequitting, or going outside to do something better, that's not great for advertisers protecting their brand & wanting to keep people pliant & unchallenged as they stay engaged in their uncritical filter bubbles & echo chambers.With old internet, safety didn't wasn't internet nanny, thought police shit, and stop burning my virgin eyes & ears.
It was an anonymous handle, not revealing personally identifying information (a/s/l?), not falling for scams & giving out payment information (unless you're into that kinky shit).
Glad to see newer social media returning to some of that.I wholeheartedly agree, the only censorship should be in the individuals hands and only affects them. Aka blocking other users or content from being displayed on your own account. My moral compass does not need to be everyone's moral compass.
-
Have you heard of bridgy?
Yes, but itβs not relevant to the point I was making
-
And hereβs how and why it will be enshitified:
RemindMe! 10 years
-
For projects, it slows progress.
Your example of toxicity is linux maintainers resisting a newer programming language, not wanting to maintain additional bindings, and being stubborn about it?
People decide whether to work & agree with each other, so what's your definition of toxicity here?
How's moderation supposed to solve that: force people to agree & work together unwillingly?
Seems rather authoritarian.
People should only put words & images on a screen that someone approves?
More authoritarian.
And look at those imaginary problems we can solve!This goes back to the grandiose conceit I wrote about earlier: some people can't get over themselves, take these words & images on a screen a bit too seriously, and feel they know better than others the right words & images to put on a screen, because of course they do.
The rest of us know it's just a bunch of self-important crap that doesn't matter unless we make it matter, and we can ignore it or put our own words & images on a screen or go outside.You streamed together a sequence of misunderstandings, fallacies and self-victimization into an incoherent pile of garbage that fails at actually responding to anything. Got it, got it, you're god's bravest warrior, resisting the authoritarianism of people who think others shouldn't be forced to tolerate your immaturity whenever you act like a cunt. I'll stop giving you attention now, so sorry.
-
You make laws like the Online Safety Act in the UK. You then attach a multi-million dollar fine to anyone who doesn't adhere to the bonkers unenforceable stipulations in the text.
All of a sudden, no one but a corporation with a legal department can safely run an instance without putting their money and eventually freedom on the line.
They might not be able to just stop it, but you can force us into a pirate scenario where we have to do it in the dark.
We are likely starting to slowly head into 1984 territory. IF Fascim continues to rise, eventually, non-state-run media will be deemed unlawful and they'll do what they can to make it go away.
This is why fedi needs to support federation over tor
-
You streamed together a sequence of misunderstandings, fallacies and self-victimization into an incoherent pile of garbage that fails at actually responding to anything. Got it, got it, you're god's bravest warrior, resisting the authoritarianism of people who think others shouldn't be forced to tolerate your immaturity whenever you act like a cunt. I'll stop giving you attention now, so sorry.
Victimization is all on those like you threatened by naughty words & images who claim we need some great moderator hero to defend us against their toxicity, which apparently includes work-related disagreements.
people who think others shouldnβt be forced to tolerate your immaturity whenever you act like a cunt
And they'll be objective about it, or is anything someone disagrees with instance of immaturity & someone acting like a cunt?
Do we need the noble internet police to swoop in and protect us against your words & images? -
This is why fedi needs to support federation over tor
When they get serious about encryption they will make tor illegal as well.
Tor will not hide you from the feds once they decide they really want to go after encryption. They can either own enough endpoints to find you directly or simply go and shut down all the endpoints. Or, If they have other IP leaks that are unpublished...
On the upside they are firing most of the competent people in government so there's a chance the CIA can't do that anymore
-
Here's the same video on PeerTube
-
Victimization is all on those like you threatened by naughty words & images who claim we need some great moderator hero to defend us against their toxicity, which apparently includes work-related disagreements.
people who think others shouldnβt be forced to tolerate your immaturity whenever you act like a cunt
And they'll be objective about it, or is anything someone disagrees with instance of immaturity & someone acting like a cunt?
Do we need the noble internet police to swoop in and protect us against your words & images?didn't read, easy block, shoulda done this sooner.
-
He has the most posts and comments on the Lemmy activity scoreboard.
Mother of God, I did not realize that he's pushing 70k comments.
Btw are you just joking or isn't there actually a tool that checks Lemmy profiles and gives a neat little scorecard with some stats? I remember reading a thread where someone linked it but that was a while ago.
-
Mother of God, I did not realize that he's pushing 70k comments.
Btw are you just joking or isn't there actually a tool that checks Lemmy profiles and gives a neat little scorecard with some stats? I remember reading a thread where someone linked it but that was a while ago.
The ios app Mlem shows a scoreboard of users in the search tab. Also Thunder has a monthly contribution stats on user profiles.
-
When they get serious about encryption they will make tor illegal as well.
Tor will not hide you from the feds once they decide they really want to go after encryption. They can either own enough endpoints to find you directly or simply go and shut down all the endpoints. Or, If they have other IP leaks that are unpublished...
On the upside they are firing most of the competent people in government so there's a chance the CIA can't do that anymore
If china has failed to stop tor I doubt the us can do much better
-
If china has failed to stop tor I doubt the us can do much better
Blocking tor at the firewall level isn't difficult. Anything with packet capture can do it.
-
The ios app Mlem shows a scoreboard of users in the search tab. Also Thunder has a monthly contribution stats on user profiles.
Ok cool. Tfw there are so many great apps for Lemmy but you can only use one at a time
-
Here's the same video on PeerTube
We should have a bot link federated alts for links...
-
didn't read, easy block, shoulda done this sooner.
Well done: thanks for ignoring & confirming my point.
-
We should have a bot link federated alts for links...
There is a Firefox extension that does automatically (although it seems to be a bit unreliable). Maybe someone can extract that part into a library and make a not with it.
-
There is a Firefox extension that does automatically (although it seems to be a bit unreliable). Maybe someone can extract that part into a library and make a not with it.
That works for desktop but not the voyager app π«€
-
Blocking tor at the firewall level isn't difficult. Anything with packet capture can do it.
They can inspect the target ip but then u can just bridge it. I wrote a tor implementation from raw websockects.
-
IMO bridgy is not well designed. The fact that it requires both the follower and the followee to specifically opt in basically makes it DOA. Both Mastodon and BlueSky are completely open and public in terms of post visibility, so bridgy should have been designed to require explicit opt outs from anyone who didn't want their content bridged.
The fediverse hoa had a bit of a problem with it, ignoring the fact that federation is opt out by default.
