Yeah, I'd be hesitant to ever login to a third party client I couldn't self host. Hopefully O-Auth might be a future feature for Lemmy.
Intolerant ideas (including messages and posts) should be allowed, considered, and countered with better ideas. Should be easy, since intolerant ideas are generally shitty ones.
Indeed, such ideas are often baseless, but the people who hold them can still be resolute against rationale, as per Karl Popper's quote in the wiki article above:
... for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive ...
Intolerant actions (and I’m differentiating against speech from action here) should be prevented.
I'll preface this with my personal opinion here, that corporations do not merit civil personhood, yet I think focusing on free speech is veering away from the question and hand: in particular, how should the Fediverse (or at least our instance in particular) respond on engaging with Facebook, in light of what we currently know of the corporation's historic actions, as well as our uncertainty of it's future actions.
I suppose we could also rephrase this question more generally. I.e how should Fediverse communities respond to the hypothetical approach of other social media conglomerates, supposing the Fediverse gains the attention of not just Facebook, but also:
- TikTok
- YouTube
- etc
But honestly even if Facebook is operating in bad faith, such is life. We shouldn’t abandon our core concept even so.
Hmm, that sounds fairly applicable to the Paradox of Tolerance, where the we are beholden to be inclusive to an industry that has a repeated history of running afoul in society.
The paradox of tolerance states that if a society is tolerant without limit, its ability to be tolerant is eventually ceased or destroyed by the intolerant. Karl Popper described it as the seemingly self-contradictory idea that in order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must retain the right to be intolerant of intolerance.
https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
Personally, I think that a sufficiently large instance does represent a major risk. But now I think it’s a risk we have to take.
If we had to white board a decision matrix on Facebook federation, what would be the number of risk's and rewards for either approach? How would you weight or quantify them? Just trying to approach this from a little more of an analytical angle, given most of us are developers anyway.
Folks, if a single organization could bring down the fediverse, then the “decentralize so that no one can gain too much power” model is proven wrong, and it was bound to fail anyway.
I'd be interested to hear how Facebook would seek to alleviate those concern, regardless of weather such concerns are realisticly founded or not, as social networks inherently deal with humans and public opinions.
- What kind of technical solution from Facebook do you think would best help appease concerned users in the Fediverse?
- Could there be a technical solution to resolve the social dilemma of (real or appearance of) power imbalance between Facebook and the rest of the Fediverse?
I'm trying to think of how Facebook could gracefully relinquish control over its platform while guaranteeing Facebook could not later subvert those concessions. Would that ever be in Facebook's best interests? I guess improved user trust and positive PR could help abate the calls for regulation and monopoly busting.
There are skeptic rumours that Facebook is hoping to leverage the Fediverse as a relief valve for regulatory pressure due to EU's DMA:
- Theory: the only reason Meta cares about the fediverse / ActivityPub is so that threads isn’t labeled a “gatekeeper” under the EU’s new “Digital Markets Act”
- https://lemmy.world/post/1105955
Looks like the author of the last article above posted a follow up yesterday:
- https://ploum.net/2023-07-06-stop-trying-to-make-social-networks-succeed.html
- argument for local communities and against universal social networks
Looks like they posted the video process timelapse of that artwork here:
I'll have to checkout their webcomic Pepper&Carrot. Thanks for the reference!
I haven’t watched the video because it’s a awkwardly bloated format to consume for something as straight-forward as presenting an idea.
No worries, for some with visual impairments, auditory formats are easier to consume. I wish historic write-ups and technical blogs had better support for screen readers, but many authors have a tendency to use unnecessary embeddings without captions or alt-texts. Good oratores are fine to listen to, even if I don't always see the slides.
However, I don’t think the way this was phrased is honest and objective. It makes it sound as if evil corporations conspired to spread evil over something that was good and pure.
Eh, that summarization was merely written in the literal sence of corporate decision making and economic forces of the market, no deeper meaning ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ . While corporat conspiracies occur on occasion (think Enron or High-Tech Employee Antitrust Litigations), I think anthropomorphizing large institutions by attributing them with emotions or morals would be naive, e.g: Dangers of anthropomorphizing Oracle. And while the speaker did titled their talk using the contextual phrase "vs Capitalism", the talk itself is hardly a criticism on business.
Legal recourse is also not possible as bad actors hide behind permissive jurisdictions that serve as safe havens for criminal and abusive actions. If anything, the “corporate forces” were instrumental in eliminating all of these problems, and turned email from an unusable and fundamentally broken technology into a highly reliable and trustable global infrastructure.
Agreed. For what it's worth, that is the same observation of jurisdiction, regulation, and innovations that were presented by the speaker. The speaker discussed how email hosting providers, corporations such as Google, deviated from the original specification as needed to counter fraud and human errors, such as refusing to treat addressed emails with varying insertions of periods as separate users, preventing the practice of typo namespace squatting.
Perhaps irrelevant to email thanks to ASCII limitations, but another example of implementations justifiably deviating from the generality of original specifications could be Lemmy itself, as the ActivityPub standard doesn't seem to forbid the use of invisible characters within usernames, a common practice for enabling impersonation on many communication platforms:
For previewing the body text of posts, I'm not sure how one should otherwise display the text when confined to the list layout of feeds. For example, rendering the html generated from the markdown could lead to some irregularly sized preview text blocks, line breaks, font sizes, given the headings you mentioned would throw off the minimalism.
That said, I would like to see at least the markdown hyperlinks rendered inline with the body text preview, as the URLs often take the majority of the limited character count, and could be more compact as clickable links to enable more contextual text to be included in the summery. Then again, I'm not sure how embedded images using markdown could be rendered without yet again borking the structured layout of the aggregated feed. Raw text seems to have been a practical compromise that would be robust to gaming or clickbaiting in body text previews.
The first link you listed (viewing the remote community from our local instance) shows 0 subscribers from the sidebar. From my understanding, no one from our instance is then subscribed to that remote community, so our instance has no reason to index those posts. Although I could be wrong, and it could be that no one from our local instance is subscribed to any community on the remote instance. I'm unsure if only instance federation or community subscription is necessary for merrioring/indexing remote posts.
Email is too big to change, too broken to fix… and too important to ignore.
That is such a great quote! Here is my attempt at such a quip:
Email's own complexity, legacy, and backwards compatibility divines its own Incorruptibility.
Hope the SREs can get back to a quite workday soon.
Looks like you linked to the !devops@programming.dev post directly. You can also use the cross-post button on the original post, just next to the star/save icon. That'll reuse the original URL that the original post used, then also auto populate the body with a link directly to the original post, along with quoted markdown of the original body text.
The nice thing about using the same URL for cross-posts is that Limmy-UI will also include hints below the title of posts with names of the communities cross posted to, allowing readers to discover even more cross-posted locations to jump into other threads, even from other instances.
Not sure if the Lemmy community has established a consistent etiquette for linking, as I think currently the URLs have to string match exactly for cross-posts to be highlighted. URL parameters and shorteners can throw a wrench into that feature. Would be nice to support aliasing across common variants, such as YouTube share and time parames.