It'd not just break the philosophy, but the practical use of the fediverse. People use Mastodon, Peertube, and Lemmy privately amongst a friend group, or even on a LAN; maybe a small company uses Lemmy internally. Then they make it federated later, when they want more users, more content, whatever.
ram
joined 2 years ago
I'd recommend anyone using this to really consider how much data this'll use on their system.
Ya no that's fair. I just moved from a personal instance to a self-hosted instance so it'd be nice to get my blocked users list back, personally
Do both home and target instance have to be >=rc-9?
you do it from an already existing post.
It's people's choice to earn the ire of others. It's their choice to federate with Threads, and it's my choice to defederate from them as a result.
We should leave instances who federate with threads.
"Social media company" means a person or entity that provides a social media platform that has at least five million account holders worldwide and is an interactive computer service.
I think it's safe to say no single Lemmy or Mastodon instance will ever be covered by this particular bill.
In the latter case, I think it might be feasible to prevent upvotes from being counted multiple times if the username is identical on different instances, since upvotes are public. Is there already a mechanism to do this?
If @dude@lemmy.world upvotes and @dude@lemmy.ml downvotes, how do we decide which is the canonical vote? How can we say for sure they're even run by the same user?
Also, isn’t it much more common in the Fediverse than on central platforms for the same user to have multiple accounts with different usernames?
This was the norm on Reddit too.
I suppose this would only be possible if the different instances would log IP addresses and share this information with other instances. That doesn’t seem desirable to me at all, and probably wouldn’t be legal, at least in Europe, because of the GDPR. Are there other possibilities? Cookies?
Let's not inundate the fediverse with tracking cookies and privacy invasion.
I get where you're coming from, but I just think that the solutions to these problems aren't actually solutions, and they're a case where the cure is worse than the ailment.
And they’ve shown they’ll allow content through for those who are willing to pay them. Also, I don’t know if they still do it, but I remember they used to inject their own advertisements on websites (I think it was opt-out though)
You sure you're not thinking of AdBlockPlus, or did Brave do it too?
We have no evidence they're not. Statistically speaking, as many as 8% of humans are potentially immortal.