The quality about the fediverse that I appreciate the most is the fact that nobody on any of its platforms raised an eyebrow at having a rainbow-coloured pentagram for a logo, until the first Twitter exodus when some newcomer primed for spotting the mildest of outrage-by-proxy gasped, "Have you seen this? Somebody might get upset!"
Meanwhile, the pentagram has been warding off hyperbolic fundamentalists since 2018. The fediverse is much chiller without them. š¤
When there are only two options om the ballot and one is set to steer your country into fascism and a recall of human rights ā there is no comparison. You vote for the other one.
I guess you have to take it for what it is. I see Matrix primarily as an IM network, and for that it works fine. I only use it for private communications with trusted friends, no random pedos can drop into our conversations.
In the past I've subscribed to a couple of interest-based rooms (music and movie genres), but other than that I don't find Matrix' forum or social features very compelling. Too much potential for anonymous randos lulz bombing any public room for my taste.
Well, Mastodon and Lemmy both use ActivityPub, and they're not entirely compatible. On the other hand, the diaspora*, Ostatus and Zot protocols are more or less compatible with ActivityPub, and are considered parts of the Fediverse.
Edit: My bad, according to this diagram it's much more fragmented than I understood it!
I'll grant you that their tech column is dismal, but I happen to agree a fair bit with their ideology so I'm pretty much fine with their (so far) unpaywalled news site...
YY/MM/DD or casual short MM/DD (where the year is understood). It's no different, you just skip the year if it's a given š But for archival purposes, file naming etc, the YYYY part is mandatory.
So apparently the state "only" cracked down on her previous online presence such as Youtube, and probably put her and her partner under increased surveillance/control?
No, I'm talking about people seeing past fāng fandom to the reality that others they meet online, or whose content they consume, may live under less free circumstances than themselves.
She was outed by Vice, which seems to have been met with apathy by the online community, and it looks like the authorities cracked down on her as a consequence. The insistence of some commenters to see this through a "fan" or "taste" lens is pretty blinkered.
I'm confused, which is it?