I'm concerned that people are already eager to bury the fediverse and unwilling to consider what would be lost. The solutions I keep hearing in this space all seem to hinge on making the place less equal, more of a broadcast medium, and less accessible to unconnected individuals and small groups.
How does an instance get into one of these archipelagos if they use allowlists?
Same thing with reply policies. I can see the reason why people want them, but a major advantage on the fedi is the sense that there is little difference between posters. I think a lot of this would just recreate structures of power and influence, just without doing so formally--after all the nature of scale-free networks is large inequality.
It's possible FF wouldn't get away with something like integrating ad blocking by default, but in no reasonable universe were they required to do the PPA stuff and turn it on by default. Nor is it clear that it will lead to websites caring about FF compatibility--unfortunately many already don't.
The usual pro-advertising take. "It's ok that we're going to experiment without your consent on how to manipulate you, because we only use aggregated data so it's not personal, it's business."
So it would still help optimising persuasion at scale (also known as lying to people to best et them to act against their interest). Why is this a good thing again?
what do I think the history is? A record of the sites I visited.
What do I think the history isn't? A correlated record of which advertisements I've been exposed to, and which conversions I've made, that gets sent to people who are not me.
Pretty relevant distinction. One thing is me tracking myself, another thing is this tracking being sent to others, no matter how purportedly trustworthy.
I'd like people to STOP PRETENDING that the only plausible reason why someone doesn't agree with this is that we don't understand it. Yes, I understand what this does. The browser tracks which advertisements have been visited, the advertiser indicates to the browser when a conversion action happens, and the browser sends this information to a third-party aggregator which uses differential techniques to make it infeasible to deanonymise specific users. Do I get a pass?
Yes, this is actively collaborating with advertising. It is, in the words of Mozilla, useful to advertisers. It involves going down a level from being tracked by remote sites to being tracked by my own browser, running on my own machine. Setting aside the issues of institutional design and the possibility for data leaks, it's still helping people whose business is to convince me to do things against my interest, to do so more effectively.
I don't blame Mozilla for not single-handedly ending advertising online. That's too much to expect from anyone. But they could at least avoid active collaboration with the enterprise. And if they're going to engage in it, they should at the very least warn their users.
I don't have a complete solution, but I have a vector, and this is in the opposite direction, being, according to its own claims useful to advertisers.
The solution passes through many things, but probably has to start by changing the perception of advertising as a necessary nuisance and into a needless, avoidable, and unacceptable evil. Collaboration does not help in this regard. Individual actions such as blocking advertising, refusing to accept any tracking from sites, deploying masking tools, using archives and mirrors to get content, consciously boycott any product that manages to escape the filtering, are good but insufficient.
Whatever opinion you may have of advertising as an economic model, it’s a powerful industry that’s not going to pack up and go away.
Fuck that. Not if we don't make it. That's precisely the point. Do not comply. Do not submit. Never. Advertising is contrary to the interests of humanity. You're never going to convince me becoming a collaborator for a hypothetically less pernicious form is the right course of action. Never. No quarter.
We’ve been collaborating with Meta on this,
That makes it even worse.
any successful mechanism will need to be actually useful to advertisers,
And therefore inimical to humanity in general and users in particular.
Digital advertising is not going away,
Not with that attitude.
but the surveillance parts could actually go away
Aggregate surveillance is still surveillance. It is still intrusive, it still leverages aggregate human behaviour in order to harm humans by convincing them to do things against their own interest and in the interest of the advertiser.
This is supposedly an experiment. You've decided to run an experiment on users without consent. And you still think this is the right thing--since you claim the default is the correct behaviour.
Yes, for example I donate to thunderbird since I find it useful. And I wouldn't mind donating to Firefox either provided they wouldn't do this sort of fuckery.
though in the long run we need to overturn capitalism of course, and that an economic model is viable doesn't mean we should sustain it or justify it.
This is bullshit. The total amount of advertising I want is zero. The total amount I want of tracking is zero. The total amount of experiments I want run on my data without consent is, guess, zero.
Definitely, AP is not magic. But if even within one protocol round-tripping and full-fidelity is impossible or very difficult, that makes it only harder and less likely through a bridge.
IMO bridging or translation isn't federation per se. Also it seems unlikely that protocols would converge to that extent. In fact AP implementations are already different enough that even within the same protocol it's hard to represent all the different activities instances can present.
I wouldn't really count Mastodon/Bluesky bridging as federation. They're incompatible protocols that were never intended to work together (arguably Bluesky was explicitly designed to avoid using AP).
For me the weirdest part of the interview is where he says he doesn't want to follow anyone, that he wants the algorithm to just pick up on his interests. It's so diametrically opposed to how I want to intentionally use social networks and how the fedi tends to work that it's sometimes hard to remember there are people who take that view.
Very informative. On paragraphs 61 and following, it clearly explains why the Israeli claims on human shields are improper and how attacks are not maintaining the principles of proportionality, distinction, and so on.
I'm concerned that people are already eager to bury the fediverse and unwilling to consider what would be lost. The solutions I keep hearing in this space all seem to hinge on making the place less equal, more of a broadcast medium, and less accessible to unconnected individuals and small groups.
How does an instance get into one of these archipelagos if they use allowlists?
Same thing with reply policies. I can see the reason why people want them, but a major advantage on the fedi is the sense that there is little difference between posters. I think a lot of this would just recreate structures of power and influence, just without doing so formally--after all the nature of scale-free networks is large inequality.