blightbow

Source? I am happy to shit on spez, but my sphincter’s aim must be true.

Because it’s what we’ve come to expect from large corporations suddenly joining the table of any FOSS project that is adjacent to their financial stakes. Coexistence is possible if they can profit from the software without assimilating it, but it also stands to reason that they will be pushing for new interoperability standards that benefit their own business model at the expense of users in some way.

The lowest hanging fruit would be something that allows them to associate Fediverse accounts with users whose marketing data already exists in their database, or providing a service to third parties that helps them tie their own databases back to Fediverse users. This would require some sort of hook that encourages the users to either associate their Fediverse accounts to an existing Meta service, or otherwise volunteer common PII such as email address that can be cross referenced. Maybe some kind of tracking cookie that accomplishes the same.

Keep in mind that this is just an example, it is not necessarily the exact angle they are pursuing. I’m not in the automatically defederate camp, but a healthy amount of skepticism is definitely warranted.

——

Edit: Also worth a read: https://kbin.social/m/fediverse@lemmy.ml/t/83284/How-to-Kill-a-Decentralised-Network-such-as-the-Fediverse

Giant meteor. It didn’t win the 2020 election but maybe this is a stage it can compete on.

This is where the argument for unconditionally providing equal air time to bad faith arguments falls apart, and where paradox of tolerance comes into play. One side demands tolerance for itself but argues in bad faith, and the other is inclined toward tolerance with others because it's what they would want for themselves. The latter is taken advantage of because the former does not return the favor.

The key to solving for the paradox is recognizing that there is a difference of scale:

1. If one ideology demands tolerance for itself but is intolerant of all ideologies aside from its own, its intolerance is broadly scoped. There is more intolerance in play than tolerance.
2. If one ideology grants tolerance to other ideologies except when their own is denied the same, then the intolerance is narrowly scoped. Intolerance is still in play, but it is a false inference to imply that those who champion equality must unconditionally surrender it to those who do not believe in it.

Pay attention to how many ideologies a school of thought is trying to silence and who their allies are. Unreasonable extremists can be found in all camps and their existence alone does not prove a movement's bad faith or your own righteousness. Reasonable people should exist, making it more important to focus on the goals of the movement and how its better stewards comport themselves. Remember that people who open their discussions with rudeness and toxicity are compensating for the insecurity of their debating point and already betraying their own intolerance. They aren't worth engaging with.

• Who are the patient and reasonable people that are standing up for an ideology?
• Does a leader for a movement rely on emotional appeals to unrelenting anger? Are they always angry and rude in a public setting, and primarily trying to appeal to those who behave in a similar way? Ignore their spiel and use someone else as your benchmark.
• What happens when you try to engage in a conversation with the patient ones? Do they keep a level head and respectfully agree to disagree with you while happily trading points, or do they go on the attack with ad-hominems when you patiently poke at the holes in their arguments?

At the end of the day there aren't any simple solutions and you're left with a critical thinking exercise that only works for you. Be one of the patient people who is a good advocate for your cause, but do not allow yourself to invest a disproportionate amount of effort engaging with someone who does not return respect. Seek out those who return that respect, regardless of their stated ideology, and you will both be better for it when the conversation is done. And hopefully the result of those conversations will help other people make up their mind about who is truly acting in bad faith.

Yeah this is a memes community, but it's something that I've been thinking about for a while. Feel free to quote/link/whatever.

If I understand things correctly, communities from other instances aren't going to appear on the front page of kbin.social until a user first subscribes to them. It's good for getting exposure to active communities that you weren't aware of, but some of the more niche and low volume communities from other instances aren't going to start appearing until a user proactively goes looking for them.

Doesn't seem like it. When viewing a low volume community on kbin.social, I see zero posts and zero comments. View it from the original instance (lemmy.ml) and there are four posts in the past week, with three of them having comments. kbin.social became aware of the community two days ago according to the infobar. All of the posts were made prior to that date.

Edit: I've also been subscribed to it for two days from kbin.social.

Several image themed subreddits voted to change their rules so that only "sexy" pictures of Jon Oliver were allowed. (in practice, any picture of Jon Oliver) It was intended as a form of protest against subreddits receiving threats from the admins to have their head mod role transferred to any mod who was willing to reopen the sub.

This one was apparently too sexy for the Reddit admins to handle...

It's also invoking the same strategy that Reddit themselves did with communicating the API change. They'll provide more information in 4-6 weeks...immediately prior to announcing something uncompromising that flies in the face of the previous promises. :)

Just take it slow. Migrations tend to happen in waves, and we've got several more ahead of us even in the most ideal scenario for a Reddit exodus. The next pivot point will be at the end of the month when the bulk of account deletions will hit the server. From there it depends on peer pressure, how the quality of the site continues to decline, and how many more times /u/spez throws tantrums in the public media.

If you truly want to take your community with you, the best thing you can do is go cold turkey on Reddit yourself, regardless of whether you choose to self-delete or not. Deleting is better because it reduces temptation. From there, anyone who cares about timely updates from you will have to content themselves with waiting for others to repost, or they will need to follow you.

If we're going to get academic about it, the political compass is an imprecise tool and it's a fool's errand to take an absolutist approach to assigning political ideologies on the spectrum. :P Just because an ideology is generally in the authoritarian-socialist quadrant doesn't mean it can't crib notes from a philosophy in a different quadrant. The authoritarian axis is more anchoring here than socialist/conservative.

Since there is always some sucker to be found on Reddit who enjoys taking orders and licking boots, no sub can really defend against this move by Reddit admins. Which is probably why some other mods decided to maliciously comply instead.

Yeah, pretty much. To not reopen you have to have absolute confidence that no one on the mod team will succumb to the temptation to steal ownership of the sub. The fact that some subs have fallen prey to this (like /r/piracy) is why mods have been wringing their hands and reopening subs left and right.

Honestly this shit is early IRC drama all over again; kick all the other ops from the channel and it belongs to you, provided those people aren't registered in the ChanServ. /u/spez is the ChanServ, and he's letting everyone know he's willing to look the other way.

all they had to say is "no we aren't tankies" and people just took them at their word lol

IMO it's a little more cynical than that, they rephrased the narrative into one that they could cleanly reject and be quoted on. As others have pointed out, it is almost a certainty that 1) they do not consider themselves or their ideology to be fascist, and 2) they aren't supporting genocide if they do not acknowledge that the peoples in question are actually subject to genocide.

Edit: ...Which you've already affirmed in one of your previous comments, my bad.