focusforte @ focusforte @lemmy.world

Posts

1

Comments

61

Joined

2 yr. ago

(also, the update post clearly says to continue commenting, that the admins are still interested in different POVs)

I'll answer both of your questions with one answer,

Because I only just now saw it and had things to say about it.

I mean that's still pretty easy to handle though, give users the ability to filter specific instances from their "Hot" or "Active"

Hack you can even make the default automatically exclude meta instances from that.

And what's to stop them from getting API access anyway? Maybe not from the threads.net instance but maybe from some kind of shell instance?

As far as I can tell, Absolutely nothing. Which means that defederating from them does absolutely nothing to protect users of this instance. Literally the only thing it does is hurt users of both instances by preventing them from talking to each other.

I think the biggest point and the reason why I think he's right about the privacy issue is that when I have an account somewhere on the Fediverse, Meta is going to be able to access that data that is publicly available from my account. That data is out there and available and that's just how the Fediverse works. The activity pub protocol is going to publish all of that activity.

The difference being that if it's defederated from, then I have to have an account on their platform, and then they get access to way more of my data. Defederating as far as I can tell is a lose lose situation. Because no matter what meta is completely capable of scraping data off of the Fediverse. There is absolutely nothing that can stop them. Even if they are defederated from they will still be able to access all that data. Because the date is either public or private. If it's private then only the instance that I am hosted on has any access to it, if it's public then every instance (whether it's defederated or not) can access it.

The only thing that defederating realistically accomplishes is preventing users of this instance from interacting with users of that instance. At least as far as my education can tell.

It feels like there's a lot of very valid reasons for people to hate and distrust meta and there's a knee jerk instinctual reaction to defederate and I understand why but at the end of the day the admins need to be weighing the actual pros and cons.

If there's one thing that the Fediverse has the capability of doing it is introducing real competition into the social media space though,

By defederating and cutting off users of that meta platform from the rest of the Fediverse you are strengthening metas monopoly though. You're making it more difficult for people to leave that platform.

People choose a social platform based on the people they can communicate with. I still have to maintain a Facebook account because there are people on that platform that I need to stay in contact with. I don't want to have a Facebook account but I have to because it's the only way to keep in contact with them.

If Facebook federated and I could communicate with those people who decide that they want to stay on Facebook I could then get rid of my Facebook account. I could take advantage of the biggest benefit of the Fediverse and enjoy my social media experience on whichever instance I want without cutting myself off from people who've chosen to be on a different social media instance of some kind.

Federating with meta platforms will Make it easier for people to leave meta platforms. Anymore most people are only on Facebook because it is a monopoly and you have to be there in order to talk with everyone that's there. Giving people an option to talk to people on Facebook without having to be on Facebook yourself makes it easier for people to leave Facebook.

I think someone needs to educate me because based on my understanding of the Fediverse all they have to do is access the data stream from this instance they don't have to have full federation with them. If zuck wants your data they're going to get it because that's the way the federated platforms work.

The only thing that defederating would do is prevent you from accessing data from their platform. The only thing that de-federating them will do is prevent users on this instance from accessing or having communication with any user on that instance. If meta wants to get data from lemm.ee or any other federated platform All they have to do is read the data that's published by the servers. There isn't really anything that any fediverse instance can do to prevent other platforms from reading information. Just receiving.

I don't understand why you're bringing in how the fediverse works, because one of the ways that the Fediverse works is by allowing users to choose a place to call home and where they create their account but still access all the different social posts from everywhere on the Fediverse. By virtue of how the fediverse works I don't need to have an account on their website to view their content. Or at least I shouldn't have to. If they support Fediverse, I should be able to access all of that anywhere on the Fediverse I want.

The whole point is that I don't want an account on a meta platform, I don't want to volunteer that much data to them. I want to be on the Fediverse and still be able to interact with my normie friends and family who aren't ever going to be willing to get on this platform for nerds that the fediverse is going to continue to be until we are willing to play nice with others.

It would be way safer for you as a user though to have an account on this side and then view content through federation.

By having an account on a meta-owned app you are giving them vast amounts of data whereas if you have an account here on the Fediverse, All they're getting is what you choose to be publicly available on your Fediverse account...

I'd really don't understand your logic here... Because all of the data on the Fediverse is available to meta by them. They're going to be able to read all of that data regardless. As far as I can tell the only thing that defederation will accomplish is preventing you from accessing their data.

No the entire point of federation is that you don't have to have an account on every single social media site in order to be able to have their content.

You make your account on the site of your preference and you can still connect and follow with the people who are posting to other sites.

There is no need to have an account on all of these different platforms when federation allows for an individual user to decide that they want to follow a different user on a the different platform.

Please explain to me, exactly how it would result in

Drowning in a deluge of their awfulness

Like I'm actually struggling to understand how federating is going to do that. Individual users can still control what shows up on their feeds through the things they follow subscribe and block personally. Why does the instance as a whole have to defederate? Why block and prevent users of the instance from being able to engage with parts of the Fediverse?

Because most of us have friends and family who we want to keep in contact with that aren't nerds.

The fediverse is only ever going to be a playground for nerds until it has mainstream appeal or the very least is compatible with the mainstream. I want to be able to migrate completely away from having a Facebook account, but I can't because there are people who I want to and have to stay in contact with on those platforms.

If meta added fediverse support to Facebook, that would mean that I could completely get rid of my Facebook account move to a fediverse instance somewhere, or even self host my own, and still be able to keep in contact with those people who are never going to leave the mainstream site like Facebook, X, Threads, etc.

I've been saying it for years that it needs to be a legal mandate that any social media platform above a certain size should be required to support ActivityPub as a way to prevent them from having such a monopolistic hold that prevents netizens from being forced to have an account on their platform.

Maybe it's because I'm being short sighted, but I think the Fediverse is best when the individual users on the platform are the ones who get to choose who they connect with. Not the hosts of the instances.

Isn't it pretty simple though, if you don't want to see those posts, block them personally. Why make it so that none of the users can access them?

One of the biggest problems with Facebook has been it's monopolistic control over social media.

People can't migrate away from it because of the effective monopoly. I've tried to move social platforms dozens of times and the thing that makes me come back is the fact that there are certain people that are on Facebook that refuse to migrate. They are happy with the status quo over there. And the only way for me to communicate with them is for me to maintain my Facebook account.

Federation allows me to move off of Facebook and still keep in contact with those who refuse to move off of Facebook. I've always wanted Facebook to support federation for this big reason.

All of this translates to threads, there are some people who just aren't nerds, people who aren't like us and aren't willing to deal with the growing pains of something like lemme or mastodon or other federated platforms.

There really is no benefit to de-federating with them that outweighs that as far as I can tell.

What if you take a shit, turn around, and find 2 billion dollars in the toilet?

The problem isn't a billionaire that's done anything good, the problem is a billionaire who has done more good things than bad.

Those don't exist.

There's no amount of good you can do to make up for the amount of exploitation you had to do in order to get to be a billionaire.

It doesn't mean that a billionaire can't do anything good. It just means the world would still be better off without them.

You are right to consider the age gap, I would say the best bet for you to mitigate your concerns is to not put any sort of commitment in place until she's old enough that you're not concerned about the age gap anymore.

At 19 years old, you're not even old enough to drink if you're interested the US. I would probably say give her until 22 before you do anything that's going to evolve any sort of commitment or possible long-term consequence for either of you. In the meantime, there's nothing wrong with some low commitment dating.

I thought that during commercial breaks the characters in the show I was watching were still doing things and I was missing it because the commercials were not pausing the show in the background but playing over top of it.

I think the problem is that because of the way that the fediverse, they ARE hosting the content. They effectively copy the content from that community onto their server to distribute it to all the users of their lemmy instance. So from a legal perspective they are hosting the content and they would be held liable for a distributing it.

Pokemon Go was better before they added Remote raids and they should heavily restrict remote raids in a smarter way to undo the damage they did.

I think they should do a few things,

1. Implement distance limits
2. implement friendship level requirements to send invites
3. remove or significantly increase the daily remote raid limit
4. completely remove the inventory limit of remote raid passes. With the implementation of a daily limit of participation, there is no reason to restrict inventory of those remote passes.