A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
I don't think I understand the question.
The Internet isn't supposed to have a "center", at all. If it ever does, something has gone wrong.
Federation, like what we're doing here, can make it so that everyone's personal "center" can be whatever platform they choose to use most of the time. Someone trying to communicate may be using an entirely different one, it will still get federated to whatever you prefer.
The Olive Garden app, cause when you are on it, you are family.
But no, I disagree that we'd have all come together and just solved everything with a different "central" app. Though I guess a government version of Twitter where everyone gets a login and every company has to have a support arm for making announcements and allowing the government to make them too would be helpful like it was and still sometimes is.
I like this idea. I wouldn't use .gov twitter, but I support it being made.
I've also said for years that the post office should be offering official government backed email addresses to people that have the same rules as federal mail (like anti tampering laws). You get one, it's for official shit only, and it's illegal for anyone else to open your mail without your permission.
Government-backed email would also help solve the "is this a bot" problem by limiting the number of email addresses that can be used, though naturally you'd also lose anonymity using that email.
There's also the issue that if the emails are predictable, spam and phishing become much easier.
I'm mixed on this one. If we could choose the username and there's no API for anything other than "is this a person" and your classic IMAP/SMTP stuff, then I'd be a lot more on board I think.
I think ActivityPub, a driver of the Fediverse, already serves as the mainstream protocol to enable these "platforms" to deliver content in the different ways that people have come to enjoy: such as Friendica, Mastodon, and so on.
Regardless of the front facing platform, I think what I want to see is deeper integration. Users from Mastodon or Friendica be more able to see posts and comments here on PieFed or Lemmy, and vice versa, as if we're a single universe delivered in different ways. I even want to see users of PieFed be able to one day transfer their data and posts seamlessly over to say Lemmy, or Friendica.
I want to see an ActivityPub where we can resist censorship by standing alone on single instances, but in the event of an attack, we can move to new ones or bigger ones for strength in numbers. If we want the right to disappear, great, no one should get in the way. But if we want to be seen or heard in the face of violence and oppression, there should be more options in place for instances to operate in blocs, and to allow servers to cache and preserve content under attack.
In recent days, Youtube was seen taking down hundreds of videos of content documenting what many legal experts conclude is genocide carried out by Israel. Regardless of where one stands on that, the idea that a single entity can erase the collective documented experience of humanity is too much power.
I want to see an ActivityPub that can let people share their cat photos, and enjoy their moments; and I also want it to allow people to resist in credible ways if they choose to document their lives. I also want a Fediverse, that can allow even the lowly single instance server to serve with a bloc to shield even a single user's content that might be forced down by violence.
I would swap for that Fediverse.
@bluemoon Pertube and Friendica are rather complicated tools. So I guess that tools with fewer options are more mainstream compatible. But seeing that people in general tend to use photo/video oriented platforms (Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat, ...), I guess that tools like Pixelfed and Loops would be more in the focus.
Pixelfed is easier to use so you're right.
Peertube is fine but trying to find good content or a good instance is a struggle still. Frendica i've signed up for but really haven't used (in fact I think the instance I signed up on is dead).
I mean I even run my own peertube instance and I barely use it because I just can't find anything good to watch on it other than a couple tech channels that update once in a blue moon.
do you search PeerTube instances using the curated fedi.video or sepia search or another way?
I have used fedi.video and add/follow various instances I find to mine but I'm not sure if I don't have my peertube configured correctly or what but it's not pulling up anything decent.
Inevitably, either nostr will take over the internet, or the internet will be gone faster than nostr can develop to that point
@iloveDigit Nostr's unique features are their biggest enemy as well. To be completely uncensorable sounds nice, but on the same side open all floodgates for spam, massive harassment towards some groups of people or individuals and also content that is considered illegal in most countries (like child porn).
It may work in a rather small bubble, but will never work on a large scale.
Then you're really saying the internet is dying faster than it can develop. I think that's just psychologically defensive defeatism, tied to stuff like saying humans can't survive climate change
What on Earth? Where did they say anything remotely like what you describe?
If by your definition the internet is "dead" if it can't be full of unmoderated spam, racism/bigotry and astroturfing then I'll cheer the death of your "internet"
If humans can avoid extinction and keep the internet online for a long enough time, it shouldn't be too hard for them to eventually figure out censorship is bad
Intentional community building isnt censorship, and a lack of moderation isnt intentional community building. It's a cesspool with no drain.
What does that have to do with the context where you're replying? I was talking about censorship, not community building / spam filtering
The "censorship" you're referring to is what real online communities commonly refer to as moderation. Moderation is a direct form of influencing or "building" community in online spaces. Unmoderated (or uncensored as you put it) online spaces always necessarily become filled with bigotry, slurs, and Nazis.
That's the conversation we're having with you, even though you seem to want to talk about the same subject in a manner that doesnt match with reality.
Seems like you're trying to bait me into a response that could be used as an excuse to ban me. Try this bullshit on nostr if you can handle talking somewhere you can't just ban people who stand up to your bullying.
If you copy and paste your reply to me on nostr, I'll be happy to explain the basic English definitions you're asking me for (instead of a dictionary) while insulting my intelligence, but I'll also insult yours back in a more appropriate way.
Edit - you obviously won't actually reply on nostr, because you're an authoritarian bully, but if you did, I'd feel a bit proven wrong about you and not immediately say anything I'd get banned for. It's only here, that I want to say anything I'd get banned here for. Kind of a catch 22 type thing
Beehaw's only rule is to bee nice. Surely anything that violates that rule isn't worth any of our time to read.
Obviously a fake rule, since I don't see any risk of the person I was replying to being banned.
Like most online discussion spaces these days, the "moderation" isn't spam filtering, it's censorship by bullies who conveniently pretend they're only censoring bullies. At least that's my guess based on vote scores on certain content
If you believe they violated Beehaw's rules, report them.
If you want to be in a space without moderation, then Beehaw isn't for you. Moderation isn't only spam filtering. If you believe that's what moderation should be, that's okay. But that isn't what it is here or in almost any space.
I'm not going to report them, I'm just trying not to let them bait me into getting myself banned.
The problem is if I did give them the reply they deserved, I might be banned when I'm the one treating them fairly, and I doubt they'd face a longer ban for baiting me or anything.
Two wrongs don't make a right, me trying to get them banned doesn't help with the fact that online spaces form bullying cults that ban victims. Either neither of us should be banned, or the instigator should be banned without punishing the victim. If you really feel like punishing victims, it would at least look less culty and psychopathic if instigators were treated more harshly. But I'm not the one removing the option to just let everyone talk freely with no bans for non-spammers.
Idk what's up with your apparent obsession with being banned, but if that's a problem for you - maybe you should reconsider the way you interact with people on the internet.
It's really not hard to avoid bans in most spaces. Just follow the rules. Each Lemmy community has a helpful sidebar where the rules are detailed.
My whole point is that removing abusive and hateful content isnt censorship, its responsible moderation. Any online community that allows hate speech is not a community I want anything to do with. If you let Nazis in your bar, you have a Nazi bar.
Idk what’s up with your apparent obsession with being banned, but if that’s a problem for you - maybe you should reconsider the way you interact with people on the internet.
No, you. If you're using most online platforms without getting banned, you're not trying hard enough to make the right choices. Or you're very young or something.
It’s really not hard to avoid bans in most spaces.
Sure, a lot of people find it more convenient to go along with the crowd than to do the right thing. Ad populum fallacy is very popular. It seems like you're trying to allude to some other bullshit though.
Just follow the rules.
No thanks. Have reasonable rules, or embarrass yourselves / possibly doom your planet by silencing everyone that stands up to abusive authority figures. You'll actually pick one of the suggestions in my previous sentence, whereas your suggestions for me are based on an unrealistic view of me as someone spineless, or an unrealistic view of authority as something so inherently reasonable that anyone who makes a rule must deserve to have their rules followed.
My whole point is that removing abusive and hateful content isnt censorship, its responsible moderation.
Then your point is incorrect because this is a political discussion space. Open a dictionary and check what "censorship" is. It's irresponsible moderation.
Any online community that allows hate speech is not a community I want anything to do with.
And if we're lucky, your kind won't make the planet extinct before being left behind by a more reasonable future majority of humans.
If you let Nazis in your bar, you have a Nazi bar.
I don't have a bar or go to bars. I live in the US where it seems impossible to have a non-Nazi bar by my standards, and your standard here is even tighter, to where I don't see how any bar anywhere on earth could avoid being Nazi by your standards. So a bar seems like a weird comparison for internet discussion, where the Nazi places are more like the ones that promote echo chambering to help Nazism rise up (which includes banning Nazi ideas from many political spaces)
This is actually a technology community. Got anything more to say about the inevitability of Nostr and the merits of hate speech?