Oh, well in that case it's a little more concerning. But I don't expect it to be a long-term issue. It certainly isn't a serious blow to my confidence in the security of the fediverse, that's for sure! It being a somewhat minor breach may be a blessing, also; it means there'll almost certainly be more of a focus on security going forward before something more serious happens.
loobkoob
joined 2 years ago
Surely it's not really any different to any other website's admin having their account hacked/their password socially engineered? It's not an inherent flaw in the fediverse as a whole, just a human issue.
EDIT: see @Zephyrix's comment below. It was a security flaw.
From what I understand, it's because it requires a certain amount of fusion to reach the density required to collapse into a black hole in the first place. There's a huge difference in density between a dust cloud and a lump of heavy metal, and simply adding more dust to your dust cloud doesn't change that. That fusion takes time - it takes billions of years for most stars to reach that point - so it happening in just over half a billion years is really fast.
It's nice to see a (cautiously) optimistic voice on this subject for a change, although I think I feel less optimistic than you. But I do think there's the potential for it to be mutually beneficial so long as Meta remains non-malevolent.
I think there a few key differences that mean the Google XMPP situation can be used as a direct parallel, too. Google didn't really see much benefit from staying federated, because all federation did with live messaging was mean that non-Google users were benefitting from Google's users without being monetised by Google. When Google's users lost access to their non-Google contacts, the vast majority of them just carried on as usual, meaning Google continued monetising them as usual and it was only beneficial for Google as a company.
I don't think that's the case with Threads. Meta will continue to benefit from federating with well-moderated content in the future because, for Meta, it's content that's being created for free by another platform that they can still monetise. And if it's well-moderated content, that's effectively free moderation, too - something Meta would normally have to employ people for.
More interest in Activity Pub from other big players would definitely be a good thing, if only to make sure no one company has a monopoly. It would potentially have disadvantages, of course, but I think if tech giants are going to get involved, I'd rather multiple get involved to keep things somewhat competitive and (hopefully) drive consumer-friendly ideas.
It's an interesting dilemma. I don't disagree with anything you've said but, at the same time, Mr Beast is helping people, even if he's also personally benefitting. And the only reason he's in a position to help as many people as much as he does is because of his "clout" - without his platform and the sponsors he attracts, he wouldn't be able to have nearly as much of an impact as he does. And I'd rather influencers like Mr Beast exist than the Andrew Tate of the world, or the nasty "prank" influencers.
But, at the same time, you're right that it teaches people they'll be rewarded more if they wait until they're on camera before doing any acts of charity. If he can inspire people to do charitable things just for the the sake of helping make the world better then that's great, but if people are only doing charitable things for "clout" then it's definitely not ideal.
There's definitely not a black and white answer or solution. I think Mr Beast has a positive impact on the world overall, but there are definitely both good and bad things people could take away from watching his videos if they don't consider things correctly. It's something that touches on a number of philosophical subjects: capitalism, materialism, individualism versus collectivism, the influence of social media, external validation versus internal satisfaction, to name but a few.
The best thing OP can do is to teach their sons the nuances of it all.
It'll be fine in the same way Facebook is fine. It'll have users, and it'll maybe even make money. But Facebook is filled with negativity, regurgitated content, aggressive monetisation and an ever-increasing lack of personal connection.
I logged into Facebook for something last week for the first time in a long time. 14 out of the first 20 posts in my feed - so 70% - were "suggestions" or "promotions". It wasn't stuff posted by people I know or pages I've liked, and it wasn't even stuff that people I know or pages I've liked had interacted with. It was adverts and shitty, lowest-common-denominator content that I had no interest in.
Facebook isn't dead but it might as well be as far as I'm concerned. It's no longer enjoyable, interesting or useful to me. And Reddit is going down that same path.
I'm finding Kbin's PWA perfectly fine for now, honestly! I'll likely switch to an app once there's a good one available, but I don't feel like my experience is bad right now.
Yeah, I always thought it was a little unfair when it popped up telling me that "Briguy24 broke reddit!". But I never held it against you, don't worry :)
This is definitely something that's going to take some adjustment with the "threadiverse", I think. Not only do you need to check what the community culture is like, you also need to check what the instance culture is like.
That's true, I somehow forgot about all of the D.va obsessions people have! Her popularity has definitely transcended the game itself in some ways.
I think a lot of it depends on how Blizzard decides to flesh out the characters and world going forwards. Marvel characters tend to have a decent amount of nuance and depth to them, and the film versions, especially, have been humanised really well. People connect with the characters on a human level - they empathise, they want know more about them, they care for them. Whereas Overwatch characters, for now at least, are pretty one-dimensional. They have great aesthetics and well-defined character traits but they don't have the depth to them that I think is necessary for long-term engagement and a multimedia IP.
If Blizzard can flesh them out in ways that keep people invested, there's definitely room for Overwatch to grow more!
Blizzard's cinematics have always been top-notch (even at times where their games have been poor). But while I think they've always been good for cinematics, I think a mini-series needs more depth than what Blizzard tends to achieve in their cutscenes. Although perhaps I'm not the target audience anyway - I tend to find that sort of thing usually feels a little hollow due to its short runtime. But I wouldn't be at all surprised if it turns out to be great at what it's trying to be, even if it's not something that appeals to me personally.
As for Overwatch needing to go down the Marvel route... I don't think it necessarily needs to become a multimedia franchise, but I do agree that the IP has a lot of potential and I think it needs something. I get the impression that people feel a little "over" Overwatch as a game but, as you say, it's got a fantastic cast of characters, some wonderful, vibrant art, and the game hints at enough depth to the world that I'm sure some people would be interested in checking out a different Overwatch game/an animated series/whatever based on the strength of those things alone. There's a reason people were looking forward to a PvE Overwatch game in Overwatch 2, after all.
That said, I don't think Overwatch's cast of characters or its world are strong enough for it to cruise by without whatever else they feature in being high-quality. People will watch a bad Spider-Man film because Spider-Man is in it, but I don't think people will play a bad Overwatch game or watch a bad Overwatch anime just because Tracer (or whoever) is in it. It's an IP that has the potential for more, and if something's well-made then I'm sure people will be happy to check it out because they're familiar with Overwatch already, but I don't think it has the brand power to sell mediocre products.
I believe the rule of thumb is the 90:9:1 ratio: