shrugal @ shrugal @lemm.ee

Also [@shrugal@lemmy.world](https://lemmy.world/u/shrugal).

---

Read more

Posts

2

Comments

525

Joined

2 yr. ago

I think "algorithm" refers to personalized sorting and recommendations in this case, so using your data to prioritize posts that keep you on the site. That's not what any of the Fediverse apps are doing.

Then it's only changed on their instance. They'd need to create fake users and send votes for them. At that point others should be able to detect it as botting, at least if the impact is big enough.

Imo it heavily depends on the instance you are choosing. If it's one with a capable admin (team), reasonable user count and mostly hands-off moderation rules then you're probably fine with just this one account. But ofc finding the right instance can be tricky. I only moved once from LW, and for now I'm pretty happy with my new home instance.

This. I can use Lemmy for politics and tech/science news, but not much else.

You only need to create one account though, maybe two for backup. Federation means you can sub and post to communities on other instances.

This also means that you can't get them without spending an absurd amount of money for what you're getting, so it's just as bad imo. If you wanna say thanks to the devs then send them some money directly, or spread the word about how great their game is.

For a product the logo and brand recognition are not minor. Twitter was so well known and ubiquitous that the word "tweet" was included in dictionaries around the world. He threw that away and replaced it with a generic X, and no one can figure out how to call posts on that platform now.

But other than that, he has a very particular stance on moderation and free speech. He thinks hateful comments are just fine, as long as they aren't strictly against the law. But he also doesn't apply the same standards to himself, removing stuff he doesn't like even though it would be ok according to his own rules. He also gutted the Twitter/X staff, particularly the tech departements, leading to numerous outages and technical problems. All this has made it an even worse platform for civil public discourse, and it wasn't all that great before he took over imo.

Good human!

I think it makes no sense for a publisher to split up a game and get less money upfront, unless they want you to pay more for all the pieces than one complete game would have cost you. Therefore DLCs are almost always bad for consumers. The only exception are full scale expansions, because they are basically full games themselves. If they want to let people get a taste before buying then they should offer a free demo, or full refund within a certain time window.

Yes

Afaik right now you'd have to send an update for every post/comment individually, if it would even work. I think we need one simple ActivityPub message that simply means "this actor is now this other actor, and all its objects should be updated".

In principal yes, but requiring people to handle private keys would be a nightmare! Imo what we can and should do is support for transferring accounts between instances, including posts and comments.

The start was wanting to reduce my exposure to recommendation algorithms. That got me thinking about what absurd amounts of very intimate data companies have about us, and how they can use that to influence people.

Works pretty well for me. They patched a lot of issues over the last year, so maybe give it another try.

Also broken in Chrome for me.

Yea it would be a pretty radical change, requiring adjustments in many areas. But I do think it's necessary, because people not being personally invested in the things they own (just financially) and profiting from other people's work is imo the big problem with our society right now.

Companies would work the same way. You can own it (make decisions and get profits) as long as you work there. Ofc you can work for multiple companies, but with reasonably restrictions (e.g. 8 companies if you work 40h/week and 5h/week/company). I also think companies should not be able to own other companies, because companies cannot be "personally" involved in anything, only people can.

I think you can invest in things, but that shouldn't give you any legal ownership rights.

I also think it should not give you any profits, just the ability to protect your assets from losing value over time (inflation, decay, wealth tax, ...). This way people could either start something themselves and make a profit, or invest it somewhere else to try to preserve the value. What they couldn't do is invest and profit from other people's work.

I know this is pretty radical and would definitely need many changes to the way we do things right now, but I strongly believe that decisionmaking and profits should be reserved for the people actively involved in something. If you want to work with companies you don't run then get payed as an advisor or associate, because that is the work you would be doing.

We have blown the concept of ownership way out of proportion. No one should be able to own things they have absolutely no connection to, like investment firms owning companies they don't work for, houses they don't live in or land they've never been to.

I wonder what the direction of causality between these two sentences is.

Apart from privacy concerns, Google has started to add some really bad features to Chrome, such as "Manifest V3" and "Web Environment Integrity". These limit your ability to block ads or generally modify your device or the websites you're visiting, and are just a bad for the web as a whole. WEI in particular is basically DRM for the web, so Google checks your device and denies you access to websites if they don't like it. But as long as the majority of people keep using Chrome they can just force these things onto everyone.