As the comment there says, the surprise is that not every instance is blocked yet.
But I've seen hardly any Chinese on the fediverse, so they probably don't care that much. And it's not just that I've stuck to the English-speaking parts, there's been lots of Japanese and various European languages. I suppose even if it otherwise would have a chance to catch on there, Chinese users know that if it did it quickly would get blocked.
I'm sure lots of people do, it's a big country. But for the vast majority I imagine that the risk of getting in trouble for it, plus the risk of the one you paid for getting successfully blocked, plus the difficulty of finding out which ones are allowed to operate only because they share all your data with the authorities, plus the cost, plus the usual difficulties in finding a good vpn outweigh any desire to communicate freely with foreigners.
I feel like I should say that a VPN isn't a magic bullet. Even if its configured correctly to totally obfuscate the data and the final endpoint of the traffic it's still blatantly obvious that a VPN is in use. Given that the CCP monitors all of this stuff it wouldn't surprise me to learn that if you run a VPN long or often enough without providing stating why that it'll either end up blocked or you'll end up in trouble.
Given that the CCP monitors all of this stuff it wouldn’t surprise me to learn that if you run a VPN long or often enough without providing stating why that it’ll either end up blocked or you’ll end up in trouble.
How do you know this? I have friends living in China that states otherwise.
As far as I know there are specific legal provisions for foreigners living in China in regards to VPN use, so what might be true for your friends isn't necessarily true for a regular Chinese person.
Even if its configured correctly to totally obfuscate the data and the final endpoint of the traffic it's still blatantly obvious that a VPN is in use.
Which is why Chinese users don't use standard VPNs, they use obfuscated proxies with protocols like Shadowsocks and V2Ray, which mask the tunneled traffic as innocuous HTTPS traffic.
That's a fair point, but what you are talking about isn't a "VPN", at least not as they're commonly known and understood. Please remember that my response was directed to a user whose comment boiled down to "Get a VPN, that will solve the problem." A regular VPN will absolutely not the solve the problem.
Seriously, I can find articles like that detailing different incidents in every major mainstream media source. So either all of them are lying to me -or- you are trying to gaslight me.
The correct response to someone claiming something is propaganda is to go find more sources for more and separate incidents. If you can find multiple sources showing that a situation has happened multiple times then it stops being "propaganda" and starts being information.
At this point I have a pile of independent sources documenting multiple different incidents that support my understanding of the situation. I'm still open to counter evidence but so far you haven't provided any.
Non-approved VPNs used to circumvent the great wall are absolutely illegal, though largely tolerated (and observed), but the authorities can and have used them as an excuse to bring people in.
Source: have actual been to China and played the whole "which VPN will work on which network" game many times.
Instance admins: Let's give them a chance guyyyyss!!
Those of you who think the problem is data scraping or whatever are totally missing the point. All profit-motivated social media platforms engage in promoting hate content for engagement, and in doing so have deadly real world consequences. The Fediverse is one of the few online spaces where people can just be themselves naturally without being manipulated by algorithms. Given their history, there's no reason to assume Threads won't be any better about handling their own community, and anything that happens with them will affect the rest of us.
Maybe I’m just being naive, but this seems like an argument in favor of federating with Threads. One of the reasons Facebook and Instagram are so effective at driving engagement is that users have basically no ability to curate, sort, or filter the content that they see, especially since third-party clients are banned. You can’t even view most things without logging in.
The implementation of ActivityPub in Threads is a strange departure in this context - (federated) Mastodon users can view all of the content Threads has to offer without subjecting themselves to Meta’s arguably predatory curation algorithms. It almost seems like an escape for people who want to use a Meta-sized platform without Meta getting its grubby little fingers all over your mental wellbeing.
If people are worried that Threads will affect likes and comments (and therefore like/comment-based sorting algorithms) on other instances, it should always be possible to exclude Threads’s contribution to those metrics, no?
f people are worried that Threads will affect likes and comments (and therefore like/comment-based sorting algorithms) on other instances, it should always be possible to exclude Threads’s contribution to those metrics, no?
That's one of the effects of defederating. And you are still ignoring the overall point of the comment 2 layers up from your reply.
Really I think you are losing the forest for the trees. Meta/Facebook/Zuck is a known quantity. They will corrupt and exploit any environment they are a part of via any means they can. We don't need to be able to predict every last detail of how they will do so to know it is true. They have a track record of being awful, anti-consumer corporate citizens. WHY would we want to try to invite them in and try to contain them? Can we make the fediverse invisible to them? Of course we can't, but why would we cooperate in any way?
Folks who don't think this is a problem can use an instance that federates with them, just as I've chosen ( and will always choose) an instance that does not.
There is no reasonable argument for trying to be a good neighbor to Meta, because you can always, always be sure that Meta has no concern for being a good neighbor to you.
They will corrupt and exploit any environment they are a part of via any means they can.
Right, unless they can’t, though. Ideally the Fediverse should be resistant to this kind of influence without resorting to defederation. I’m also concerned that defederating from Threads will make more Threads users than Mastodon users.
We don't need to be able to predict every last detail of how they will do so to know it is true.
I mean, some idea of what they might do would be nice.
They have a track record of being awful, anti-consumer corporate citizens. WHY would we want to try to invite them in and try to contain them?
I couldn’t care less about Meta itself. My interest begins and ends with Threads users. There are a ton of people that would never give the Fediverse a try for one silly reason or another—predominantly, I would argue, the fear of the unknown—and this seems like it could be an opportunity to overcome that obstacle if leveraged correctly. The prospect of everyone and our parents using social media that is not completely beholden to Meta is exciting to me.
Again, maybe I’m wrong, but this whole thing is basically an experiment, isn’t it? I’d like to see what happens before reaching any conclusions.
I’m also concerned that defederating from Threads will make more Threads users than Mastodon users.
Already done, and by an order of magnitude at least. (probably many orders, I don't have the numbers at hand)
I mean, some idea of what they might do would be nice.
You can look at their entire history for that. And somewhere in this very discussion some other person has given a very plausible overview of their potential EEE approach. I'll add a link to that comment later when I have time to find it again.
But, I'm starting to realize that no amount of evidence is sufficient for folks who want to federate with Meta, and at the end of the day my freedom ends where yours begins, so although I will continue to advocate for defederation and flee any instance that does not make that choice, I very sincerely encourage you to do you.
The prospect of everyone and our parents using social media that is not completely beholden to Meta is exciting to me.
I firmly believe that hoping Meta isn't going to be the worst possible company they can this time is not the way to achieve that, and is in fact actively working against that future possibility.
I've been alive, adult, and working in IT for the entirety of the existence of Facebook, so I've had a long time to see everything I needed to see about them.
But, I'm starting to realize that no amount of evidence is sufficient for folks who want to federate with Meta
This is an incorrect assumption, because
And somewhere in this very discussion some other person has given a very plausible overview of their potential EEE approach. I'll add a link to that comment later when I have time to find it again.
I would be very interested to read this! There are definitely limits to my optimism here. I think Meta is a horrible company and I don’t expect them to act in the best interests of the Fediverse; I’m just not yet convinced that them giving up what is essentially free and ad-free API access to one of their platforms cannot be used to our advantage. Threads federation could absolutely be catastrophic, but it’s also possible that it’s a good opportunity; that’s all I’m saying.
And somewhere in this very discussion some other person has given a very plausible overview of their potential EEE approach. I’ll add a link to that comment later when I have time to find it again.
In a non snarky way I say that if the dozens of actual past actions linked in the two wikipedia links, plus the recent events I linked, still leave you in doubt, I don't see how a plausible but still speculative EEE summary is going to tip you over, but I'll clap anyway if it does, so:
What’s the number of Threads users compared to Lemmy? If the number of Threads users greatly outweigh the number of Lemmy users, then we’d simply be drowned out by all the Threads posts. That’s part one of Embrace, Extend, Extinguish.
Extend adds functionality to Threads that Lemmy either can’t support or won’t support for a while due to development time. People migrate to Threads because Lemmy is “missing” functionality. Plus, though I’m not clear on the exact legal specifications, proprietary code can be added to open-source code, and the proprietary code would be copyrighted. In other words, Lemmy devs would have to figure out a way to interact with and mimic Threads’ proprietary code using open-source code.
Extinguish is when Threads’ support of Lemmy is eventually dropped. The users left on Lemmy have suddenly lost a huge amount of content, and they’re left with fewer users than before Threads enabled federation.
There are definitely limits to my optimism here.
I do feel a little bit bad being the table pounding pessimist in this circumstance, but I don't see how one can look at this company's history and come to any other conclusion. It frustrates me like few other areas of disagreement about tech do to imagine folks look at everything Meta has done and think we need to wait and see how they will handle this.
for real. im new to lemmy but places like hexbear seem really good for trans stuff. i hate how so many trans places are dependent upon facebook or reddit to exist. facebook itself is problematic because those fuckers already assisted a genocide in myanmar, whats to stop them from helping to massacre trans people here?
HB and blahj are the two explicitly pro-trans instances. Hexbear is strongly oriented towards communism but I would strongly suggest them over blahj just because of their abysmal handling of c/196's noncery. They just don't have as strong of a track record as hexbear.
hexbear seems way more active in the trans spaces at least. its also nice seeing everyones pronouns and being able to guess what variant of transness someone is talking about when theyre describing their experiences.
im on lemmy cause i saw advice saying that you could access pretty much all the lgbt spots on the fediverse from here, which seems true. ive already seen a bunch of transphobic bullshit on this site and on blahaj so maybe ill just swap to hexbear, idk
Yeah you should make the jump if not seeing transphobia is your goal. lemmyML is a great omni-instance but as a result you're going to be exposed to a lot of right-wing bullshit. And really, transphobia on blahj? That's extremely disappointing but not all that surprising.
yeah one of the top trans posts the other day was filled with transphobes and people debating the merits of transphobia. i think blahaj doesnt have very active modding?
We aggressively remove transphobic/transmisic posts/comments on lemmy.ml. Please report any that you see. But understand that we don’t control the content of other Lemmy instances, so when you select “All” instead of “Subscribed” or “Local,” it’s the wild west.
i guess the question is more of bans and not just removals. for instance this guy https://lemmy.ml/comment/9833425 seems to regularly go on to write misogynistic and queerphobic screeds, but seems to not have been banned because he is a moderator and has been here for 4 years?
He’s gotten some temporary bans as well as post/comment removals. Omega_haxor is right about hexbear: it’s explicitly socialist, unlike lemmy.ml, and it’s even more explicitly supportive / aggressively protective of the trans community. Several of the largest instances have defederated from hexbear, so for better or worse, access is more limited.
my thing is this guy is a clear misogynist, hes discussed his misogyny for 4 years now. you dont have to be a socialist to think thats unacceptable. are the rules simply never enforced with bans?
getting all defensive about keeping misogynists around? maybe just ban the misogynist? doesnt take someone being new to realize that youre just inviting reactionaries that will drive people off the service, i had this whole interaction and understanding within three fucking days. people come here to leave reddit, not to find more redditors
i asked, and you did not answer, do you actually enforce your rules with permanent bans? what causes someone to be worthy of a permanent ban? do you simply just like this guy and go to bat for him?
I’m not going to take the time to dispel your presumptions nor explain myself, my motivations, or this Lemmy instance. I’ll just say that I’m not convening a grand jury trial and constitutional convention because one new user (who on first impression is giving Western chauvinism vibes) had one negative interaction with one Global South socialist who has been here over four times longer than me.
Edit to add: Again, please note that this is not an explicitly socialist instance. I won’t elaborate as to why, but it’s no more by accident than the explicitly socialist ones. What is lemmy.ml?
who on first impression is giving Western chauvinism vibes
🤣 im a communist, dweeb. you dont have to be a communist to think misogyny is bad, in fact, thats the prevailing opinion almost everywhere. the idea that the global south is in some way inherently reactionary is absurd
all youre giving off is chauvinistic reactionary misogynist vibes. jesus christ this place is a shithole, good luck getting anyone that isnt a white guy and/or a techbro here. all im getting is you got a handful of bigoted buddies that you hang out with and are completely uninterested in introspecting on it
for real. im new to lemmy but places like hexbear seem really good for trans stuff.
I am not trans, and so this may be incorrect, but while of course you can use any instance you choose, IIRC it's https://lemmy.blahaj.zone/ that is very explicitly trans-supportive at the instance level. (I'm not saying other instances are transphobic, to be clear)
Edit: I see you've already taken the convo far past the comment I replied to, sorry for not reading ahead!
As someone who's had a single-user Mastodon instance for two years now: I love it. It's definitely not for everyone, for reasons mainly stated in the article. However, if you like a more personal, highly-curated federated timeline, a single-user instance is great.
I 90% use Mastodon to keep up with my friends' posts and see art and animal pictures (and I hate interacting with strangers LOL), so I curate my instance to only subscribe to them. For the remaining 10%, I have a secondary account on a larger instance for when I want to read the news etc. It's worked well for me, but again, it's surely not for everyone!
If you mean communists that support capitalist states like China, then yes, unfortunately. Better than being around nothing but liberals or anti-communists though.
Used to mean someone who would support sending in tanks to crush capitalist rallies like in Hungary (which most people who get labelled "tankies" these days obviously don't), but nowadays it's just an anti-communist term for anyone that supports any socialist revolution that has successfully built a socialist nation.
All states are inherently "authoritarian" and enforce certain principles over others. What matters is if those principles materially prioritize workers over capitalists, which socialist states do.
You can't create a stateless, classless communist society from capitalism without a transitional socialist state that breaks the monopoly on force and propaganda that capitalist states have — specially in a world ruled by capitalist superpowers like the US which constantly coups and invades non-capitalist states. Thinking otherwise is just delusional and utopian.
No non-capitalist state will survive in the modern world if they don't sufficiently get rid of propaganda and deal with capitalist funded insurgencies, which capitalist states will label as "authoritarian"; they'd immediately be coup'd and overthrown by imperial core countries otherwise, as many socialist states have (Chile, Libya, etc).
And regardless, socialist states are a massive improvement over capitalist states when it comes to "authoritarianism" anyway, same as most other metrics. The US has 0.8% of its population in prison for example, while China has 0.1%. Similar stats on most metrics for the USSR vs USA; socialist Russia's human rights were also far better than capitalist Russia's, obviously.
You can’t create a stateless, classless communist society from capitalism without a transitional socialist state that breaks the monopoly on force and propaganda that capitalist states have — specially in a world ruled by capitalist superpowers like the US which constantly coups and invades non-capitalist states.
Ask the Zapatista. Yes, the US tried to get rid of them, couldn't, learned better and now is just letting them be. Rojava is an even better example as the US wilfully allied with them.
Figures if your revolution isn't centrally organised by Moscow or China post-McCarthy US doesn't actually care. Present-day US would've also let Cuba be SocDem, as was the original intent of the revolutionaries, instead of pushing them into alliance with the USSR.
The Zapatistas are cool comrades who fought off the US and other capitalist forces as all socialist projects have to. Different from most successful socialist revolutions in that it didn't establish a state (though it was managed centrally by the EZLN), but it has since succumbed to pressure from the government and cartels and has dissolved its municipalities last year — so it's not quite as successful of a revolution as those that establish a state, some of which have already managed to become nations of millions or global superpowers.
Cuba be SocDem, as was the original intent of the revolutionaries
"Social democracy" back then just meant socialism. The Bolsheviks who established the USSR were also "social democrats"
And your fantasies of the US ever letting a US-backed military dictatorship be overthrown and develop are funny, specially when it's currently committing a genocide in Palestine and not even letting them get rid of a western colony.
And the USSR was a centralised state capitalist system. China has even left the "state" part behind and is nowhere nearer abolishing class than it was at the start of the revolution. It actually regressed in that regard.
But, fine, call Rojava that if you will. Just shows how you can't see any possible roads to communism that don't involve the failed experiment that is state capitalism.
though it was managed centrally by the EZLN
The EZLN does not manage centrally. The EZLN is not even a governing body. It's a decentralised milita that councils tasked with matters of military security. It is those councils which are the governing body, not the EZLN. Rojava operates alongside the same lines, though details differ because cultural, material, and other differences.
I know it might be incomprehensible to you: A literal army, with all the capability it could wish for to order the local population around, sat down with the local population and told them about their ideas. The population then told them about theirs. They discussed, mutually refined their ideas until there was a consensus on how to move ahead, leading to what you see now. No shot was fired, noone was sent to gulag. They've also been capable of large organisational reforms, deliberated to consensus, implementation happened just a couple of months ago.
Maybe you should set aside some time and actually study those regions, not just read tankie cliff notes about how they supposedly work, or don't, or are secretly authoritarian, or whatever.
The Bolsheviks who established the USSR were also “social democrats”
The Bolsheviks were never democrats and the French social democrats still call themselves communists. But that's rather besides the point: The Cuban revolution was in the late 50, by then the split between SocDems and communists (both liberal and authoritarian) was not just done it had hardened. Heck the revolution ended in 59, after the word tankie had been established, which was 56, in direct reaction to the Soviet invasion of Hungary.
The point I'm making here is that Fidel & Co came to the US, said "We're eyeing doing something like your European allies are doing and want to be friends, you know, unions, welfare, worker's rights", the US said "nope, can't have you not be slaves to Bacardi and United Fruit you're our colony after all", Cuba said "never mind then we thought we could be friends then we'll go with our second choice, the USSR". The USSR, then, demanded from their allies a heavily authoritarian slant, so Cuba adopted it, in the interest of national survival not out of preference. Which is also why they are by far the furthest along among the surviving ML states when it comes to democratisation. Vietnam is second, with quite some distance, China makes no moves in that regard and North Korea, well, North Korea is only ever getting worse, not better. Oh, Eritrea. Same.
Aren't you that guy who argued with your own community and played the victim over the use of AI art because you didn't want to accept you were being an insufferable AI techbro who doesn't understand consent? Like I've seen trolls flex more to criticism than you did there.
I made an account a long while ago when it was the only instance with any content but I'm just a lurker looking for memes and tech news. Feeling like I should change instance these days...
lemmygrad is full of full-on tankies, the type who would willingly send birthday greetings to comrade Stalin while imprisoned in a gulag, lemmy.ml once was a default instance and thus has random folks on it but is admin-wise run by tankies and generally seems to serve as the preferred instance for lemmygrad folks to have alts on. Stay away from political communities there e.g. their worldnews community is a silly place. Hexbear is hit and miss, not so much hardened tankies there but wokescolds and random lefties who don't quite realise who they associate with, why that kind of social dynamics is no good. Might have some inane takes, occasionally prone to dogpiling, but at least you can have a conversation with them.
What, the term "tankie"? A term coined within the Communist Party of Great Britain? The CPGP is alt-right, now?
Calling the term "alt-right" is just a quick way of telling me you're a tankie without telling me you're a tankie.
Oh. "wokescold" is another possibility but that's rather unlikely, while the right has appropriated "woke" I've never heard them use "wokescold" which is precisely used by people who know and understand the original meaning and simply want to call out certain problematic behaviours done in the name of, but not to the benefit of, wokeness.
I'll just quote Zena+Poppy on the term. You may not like it, you might prefer clinical analytical language such as "puritanical progressive" or whatever, but from the context I used it in (making direct reference to social dynamics) it should be obvious that I used it in that sense.
And, no, tankie is not a "horrible fucking word". It is precise and succinct, also, tankies hate it.
Source on that? I'm serious. I did a bit of googling and do see that the likes of Ben Shapiro have been using it, but that's definitely not where I have it from, and you'll also see plenty of left-wing uses of it.
I have zero patience for people who side with fascism.
I referred you to a quite precise definition of what I mean by the term. Can you explain to me how criticising the things encompassed by that definition would put me "on the side of fascism"? Fascists have come up with plenty of terms leftists use all the time, an obvious example would be the word "fascist". Allegiance to fascism, I'd say, cannot be inferred merely by use of some shared vocabulary, you have to go deeper than that.
In any case, and I hope you see the irony, going nuclear over the use of such a term, to drill down on syntax instead of semantics, is not unlikely to fit the wokescold pattern of behaviour. Depends a bit on how you do it but overall I'd say it's likely you'd hit at least some of the checkboxes Zena+Poppy are giving.
This is super exciting. I think one of the things a lot of people are missing here is the potential for small wikis to augment existing fediverse communities. Reddit’s killer feature has always been the massive treasure trove of information for hobbyists and niche interests. There is huge potential in the fediverse to take advantage of that sort of natural collaborative knowledge building process.
Y'know, I was just going to mention Fandom. I have no idea how well this will work for Wikipedia, but I know something like this can work great for games.
Fandom is straight up harmful to game communities, and I think federation makes a lot of sense with per-game / series / etc. instances.
I'll look at this a bit more later, quite interesting idea.
Mr. Wikipedia wanted to make money off wikipedia but couldn't because it was a nonprofit, so made Wikia to profit off of.
Worst they could do on Wikipedia is e-beg and then spam the email of anyone who actually sends them money (fucking assholes) but the limits are off for Wikia they can absolutely cake that as shit full of ads and spyware as they can fit.
Instead of individual, centralized websites there will be an interconnected network of encyclopedias. This means the same topic can be treated in completely different ways. For example geology.wiki/article/Mountain may be completely different different from poetry.wiki/article/Mountain. There can be Ibis instances strictly focused on a particular topic with a high quality standard, and others covering many areas in layman’s terms.
I don't think something like this exists yet(?), so it'll be cool to see how this will be like.
Which also means that marxist.wiki/article/communism will be completely different from libertarian.wiki/article/communism. I think I will take Wikipedia's attempt at impartiability over a "wikipedia" destined to just devolve into islands of "alternative facts"
You won't find any encyclopedia (or anything really) you can use then since everything is biased towards something. Wikipedia has a massive neoliberal bias for example. And a heavily biased leadership as linked in this post.
I would love to read both a marxist.wiki/article/communism and a libertarian.wiki/article/communism - opinions are great, fine & dandy, but at the end of the day, I don't want a marxist/grasshopper vs. a libertarian/grasshopper, and I DEFINITELY do not want a conservative/vaccine vs. a liberal/vaccine each feeding misinformation from a slightly different and both-sides-incorrect approach. The enormous EFFORTS that go into finding neutral and balanced information are worthwhile, imho, as is having a central repository that would not need to be individually updated hundreds or thousands of times.
A mirroring/backup process would just as easily perform the same stated goal of preserving human knowledge - and these are already done. Arguably the federation model works best for social media, a bit less so I am told for Mastodon, but I think would not work well at all for an encyclopedia style.
But don't mind me, I am simply grieving the death of facts and reason over here... - the fact that we would even want to contemplate different "alternative (sets of) facts" at all means that we already have lost something that was once good. :-(
Everyone has implicit biases. It takes a huge amount of effort to work past them and write content that is considered unbiased. The latter is a group effort to achieve consensus, which even in the hard sciences is often difficult, but Wikipedia has had fantastic successes there - e.g. look at any controversial subject (someone mentioned BP, and how half the page was about their "controversies", which does not say that they are true, nor false, but acknowledges that they exist all the same - most people, with the exclusion of the BP execs I am sure - would consider that to be a state that is unbiased).
In fact, the OP brings up a major source of bias to begin with: if someone wants to federate a blogging website, why would we even talk about it - just DO IT!:-) However, the name "Wikipedia" was mentioned b/c it is popular. This introduces a bias whereby the rest of the discussion will be predicated upon the lines of what Wikipedia is vs. what it is not. Even though the OP made it clear that "Wikipedia" is not the goal of that project at all. Even dragging its name into it has thus introduced a source of bias, rather than allowing everyone here to discuss the merits of this proposal on its own, as if made from scratch rather than a Wikipedia-clone ("good" connotations?) or Wikipedia-wanna-be ("bad" ones?) or Wikipedia-whatever.
They baited you by saying "wikipedia", but then they switched to what looks like the wikia software. Notice how they are from lemmygrad? I hope you get my point.
I can get why that user might have a pro-communist bias themself due to being from a pro-communist instance, but the articles they linked seemed to be an accurate enough representation of how the far left and far right see Wikipedia.
Maybe not completely accurate to how it really is in all aspects, but I don't really care enough about Wikipedia's biases to fact check each contradictory claim in each article. I barely use it as a point of reference anymore anyways. (Though I've found it tends to have a liberal bias, like both the articles stated. I seem to remember that during the past election, some sections of the articles about Trump or featuring him in some way used very emotionally charged language)
But accurate or not, I still find it hilarious to look at the articles side by side. One claims the articles are written mainly by teenagers and the unemployed and supports communism, and the other claims they're written mostly by privileged White men who hate communism.
I was pointing out how no, they are not the same website. The name of "Wikipedia" was thus improper as it lacked precision, compared to something like "the wikia software, following the WikiMedia protocols" (or whatever it would be).
The content therefore has nothing whatsoever to do with the question, that was asking about the Wikipedia website.
And btw, none of this bodes well for the project imho. The front-end work is clearly lacking, as OP even admitted, but more importantly all of this discussion lacks the type of "precision" that usually goes into a Wikipedia article. Obviously any person or AI can copy the existing Wikipedia website's content, but if all of this is a reflection of what would go into that copy, then it looks to me like it will quickly fall behind.
I would have been much more likely to have read a blog post to read about the relevant issues relating to communism if it did not try to ride on Wikipedia's coattails and just stood all on its own. But... as you can guess, I would be more of a fan of articles that are precise in the terminology used rather than ones that are all over the place.
And keep in mind that b/c what is being discussed is a "federated" model, ANYONE, who writes with ANY degree of precision, from the highest to the lowest level, will be federated around to everywhere. At which point it will become too difficult to find worthwhile content, as opposed to it being in one central location. The entire point of an encyclopedia is to be a one-stop place to look things up?
Alternative takes on communism would have, imho at least, been more widely distributed if they were written on a blog website and linked to from the actual Wikipedia pages. If the Wikipedia is too restrictive then... I understand why that could not happen, but nevertheless it is still going to be a major impediment. Which is all the more reason why imprecise language, scattered throughout the entire world, does not offer much of a viable alternative to the great Wikipedia? But... prove me wrong, I guess!? :-D
Are you of the opinion that people don't already use internet resources, libraries, interviews and other
educational avenues to inform themselves? Many here seem to be needing an education on how to use Wikipedia responsively, they seem to think that one is unable to engage with a wikipedia article critically.
I just checked the article for BP, as one of the blogs linked here claimed that over 44% of BP's wikipedia page was corporate speak. The 'controversies' section is one third to half the wikipedia page in length. As a jumping-off point for further study, it is perfectly adequate.
Are you sure that you meant that to respond to me - and not e.g. the xkcd comic one below?
Fwiw I totally agree with you, and I think that's a fantastic example that you brought forth - kudos b/c I think a specific example really does add something to this conversation. Just as it does so on many wikipedia pages. There are ways to phrase most things that can be agreed upon by most people, by wrapping it in the proper context.
At a guess then, they do not think that the language describing communism is extreme enough, and so want to bypass working together to achieve consensus and instead strike off and make their own internet. But I could be wrong. Then again, the burden of clearly explaining what they want to do is on them, so if so, I don't take all of that blame.:)
Ik I'm late to the party, but I think this would be soooo much better than Wikipedia for finding useful information on niche or controversial topics.
Instead of being limited to Wikipedia's contributors and having to accommodate or guess their biases, and have a terrible, incomplete "controversies" section on every page, you could browse the same page across instances whose biases are much more explicit and see what each group determines is most important about the topic.
Instead of having to find a single mutually agreed upon article where each "faction" has their own set of issues with the content, you can now browse pages that each of those factions feel best represent their POV, and use the sum of them to form an opinion where no information is omitted.
Obviously lots of instances will have complete bullshit, but it's likely enough that you will find instances that have well-sourced material from a diverse breadth of viewpoints, and can pick an instance that federates to your preferred criteria for quality. Misinfo will exist regardless, and if they get it from a federated wiki, it will probably be at least marginally better quality or better cited than the Facebook or Reddit posts they were getting it from before.
It would be useful for the "what does X group think about Y" aspect alone.
There's also nothing stopping diverse, consensus-based instances from popping up. Or lots of niche academic instances with greater depth on their areas of expertise.
As an academic I love this. On Wikipedia there's actually fights among different expert disciplines going on. It is better to allow different instances operated by different discipline summarize knowledge from their own perspective.
To be fair, those are good faith arguments with the goal being to determine the real, objective truth. Hopefully.
That is not how this tool would be used, in the hands of people not trained in the art of socratic discourse. Just imagine how the situation in Gaza would end up being described.
I can respect your comment. The problem with Wikipedia's scholarly articlesI wanted to raise was that some group of researchers (or businesses) wash away others' views. In other times, mathematicians try to satisfy everyone from different disciplines, and write a very abstract article that covers everyone's view yet is too academic and hardly readable to most readers who actually need Wikipedia.
The goal of academic research is to inform the best and brightest of the real information. For e.g. academic extensions to how nuclear power works, or for engineers to have a working basis to build a viable power plant, and so on.
The goal of an encyclopedia though is arguably different: to make people "feel" informed, without necessarily being so? Or at least to serve as a starting point for further studies, maybe?
Science marches ever onwards, and eventually that gets collected into textbooks, and even later into encyclopedias. Or maybe now we're working from a new model where it could skip that middle step? But science still seems leagues ahead of explanations to the masses, and whereas in science the infighting is purposeful and helpful (to a degree), the infighting of making something explainable in a clearer manner to more people is also purposeful and helpful, though federating seems to me to be giving up on making a centralized repository of knowledge, i.e. the very purpose of an "encyclopedia"?
Science reporting must be decentralized, but encyclopedias have a different purpose and so should not be, maybe? At least not at the level of Wikipedia.
Fair. Though that capability - e.g. the identical wikia software, implementing the MediaWiki protocol - already exists. Maybe federating it would somehow improve it, though it would also open it up to have greater vulnerabilities especially when non-scientists get involved, e.g. a w/article/conservative/vaccine vs. a w/article/real/vaccine. Scientists can handle these controversies, but people who do not have the base knowledge with which to properly understand, e.g. ivermectin, are not going to be able to distinguish between the truth vs. the lies.
So the people that would put it to the best use don't absolutely need it - sure it would be nice but peer-reviewed articles already exist - while the ones for whom it would be most damaging are almost certainly going to be the primary target audience.
At this point, most of the solutions the ecosystem has relied on have been third-party tools, such as db0’s fantastic Fediseer and Fedi-Safety initiatives. While I’m sure many people are glad these tools exist, the fact that instances have to rely on third-party solutions is downright baffling.
I'm not sure I see the issue here, what's the point of an open ecosystem if you don't make use of any third party tools? Fedi-safety in particular feels like it should not be part of the core project
There's nothing wrong with having good third-party tools, that was not my point. db0 in particular has done some amazing, amazing work.
What's fucked, however, is having a project:
whose core infrastructure only offers the most threadbare tools
there's zero consideration from development on privacy, user safety, or basic controls to handle when shit hits the bed
the devs are stone silent when waves of CSAM crash through instances
they openly mock people or say they're "too busy to do this" when it comes to meeting the most basic expectations of how a social platform ought to work.
Like, this is not an attack on Lemmy itself, I think the platform can be a real force for good in the Fediverse. But let's be honest, this project is not going to live very long if nothing changes.
Basic things like having the ability to easily remove images from storage should be part of the core platform. The fact that this still isn't a thing even four years into the project is insane.
The first time some random user files a sue in court the admins of their instance will be in trouble.
Lemmy devs are not affected, but instance admins are and according to the GDPR they are considered "data controllers" and are responsible for the processing of users' data.
As far as I understand it, this lacking feature is an open "challenge" to existing regulation and legislators, maybe also to open people's eyes about the fact that privacy claims are often not enforced even by those who claim to do so.
Its simply not true that we have zero consideration for privacy or user safety. But that is only one aspect of Lemmy, we also have to work on many other things. And we werent silent during the CSAM wave, but most of it was handled by admins and all the related issues are long resolved. Lemmy has 50k active users, its obvious that we are too busy to work on every single thing that some individual user demands.
There is a reason that Lemmy still has version 0.x. If you have such high demands then you shouldnt use it, and switch to another platform instead. And yes you are clearly stoking an attack against Lemmy, I wonder why you hate our project so much.
Look, no one is ungrateful for the work you and Dessalines are doing. I get it - I helped run a large-scale federated open source social network over a decade ago. It's an amazing, incredible experience - but, it's also grueling, demanding work, and community members and users can be incredibly fickle. Especially when it comes to living off of donations, and having to carve out a technical stack all by yourself. That shit is hard.
Here's the thing: your users, your community, your efforts in general, pretty much ride or die by the people who run instances of your software, advocate for your platform, and develop apps and tools for your ecosystem. If something is broken at a foundational level, it's ultimately your responsibility to decide what to do about it.
Code is not the only fruit of someone's labor here. Your community is doing a lot of labor for you too, and making even less money doing so. At some point, if people don't think their needs are being met to keep running their communities and stave off the worst of the worst, it's going to tank people's confidence. People will leave. And they'll talk on the way out. Optics matter.
I'm not saying you have to drop everything to accommodate some random concern right away. But some of the responses you've given to people that had reasonable asks, that had reasonable use-cases in ensuring smooth operations of instances in compliance of laws...some of your reactions are terrible.
If your default when someone asks you about GDPR compliant features is to scream at people, demand that they do the work for you, make excuses that you're too busy, or belittle someone because you disagree with someone, you're doing community management ass-backwards, and you're burning away community goodwill every time you do it. It's hostile and demoralizing, and people will come to resent you for it.
If you have such high demands then you shouldnt use it, and switch to another platform instead. And yes you are clearly stoking an attack against Lemmy, I wonder why you hate our project so much.
See, this is exactly what I'm talking about. Someone asks for something, points out problematic behavior, gives feedback on how something could be better, and you lean into the myopic belief that this is somehow an attack or an effort to undermine you. My brother in Christ, if there is any ill-will towards how you do things, it is because of your own behavior, not on the merits of your project, your political alignment, or who you are as a person.
I don't hate your project, but you need to pull your head out of your ass, and realize that you're dropping the fucking ball on trust and safety. People hosting instances aren't going to stick around forever if you keep defaulting to hostility.
There is a stark difference between closing an issue and actually resolving the problem. You're right; lots of those issues are closed. The identified problems remain and don't go away merely because you close an software repo issue on it.
You’re not wrong to feel irked by this. However, if that’s the case, the Fediverse may not be for you. You’re probably better off over some place else, like Reddit or Bluesky, where decisions are taken centrally, investor money is driving development, and there’s a manager to complain to.
Thanks for the laugh, I've been on the network for almost the entirety of its lifetime and witnessed every development and major change. I've even helped run a major project in the early days.
Perhaps you could enlighten me on what Fediverse software does take “privacy, user safety, or basic controls to handle when shit hits the bed” into consideration, because I can’t think of any; they all just expect every other server in the network not to be malicious.
Friendica, Hubzilla, Streams, tentatively Bonfire, Pixelfed, PeerTube, Akkoma. Off the top of my head.
In what way are those better? Don’t they still suffer from the privacy problems that come with federation?
Yes, the issue is that Lemmy does not even attempt to allow you to delete the image. There is no control for the user to do this. It's literally not possible.
There's no guarantee on third party tools continuing to work with Lemmy. Something as critical as deleting images, which can cause problems like revenge porn and such, must be given priority by the official project.
Lemmy providing an open API does not mean that third parties maintain compatibility forever. (Edit: for example, what happens if the third party app gets taken away by a malicious maintainer? Or becomes buggy, or un-maintainable, project dies, etc.)
I don't want to upset you, but I think I have to say this for the sake of the community. The attitude like "we provide an API, so third parties will follow," is what is causing instance admins' distrust in the first place.
This issue has been noted since mastodon was initially release > 7 years ago. It has also been filed multiple times over the years, indicating that previous small "fixes" for it haven't fully fixed the issue.
People have submitted various fixes but the lead developer blocks them. Expecting owners of small personal websites to pay to fix bugs of any random software that hits their site is ridiculous. This is mastodon's fault and they should fix it. As long as the web has been around, the expected behavior has been for a software team to prioritize bugs that affect other sites.
If they don't want to pay to fix it, they can just block the user agent (or just fix their website, this issue is affecting them so much mainly because they don't cache).
Relying on the competence of unaffiliated developers is not a good way to run a business.
Relying on the competence of unaffiliated developers is not a good way to run a business.
This affects any site that's posted on the fediverse, including small personal sites. Some of these small sites are for people who didn't set the site up themselves and don't know how or can't block a user agent. Mastodon letting a bug like this languish when it affects the small independent parts of the web that mastodon is supposed to be in favor of is directly antithetical to its mission.
Maybe I'm naive but I kinda don't get it. People talk about defederating as if...what, all Meta IP addresses will be magically blocked from scraping your content? Any script kiddie can harvest Lemmy/Mastodon/whatever content.
Has Meta shown itself to be a bad actor? Yes. Should my email provider block all emails from Meta? Well...that's a bit much I think? If Facebook email still existed, should my email provider block that?
My point is yes, Meta bad, but all Thread users also bad? I thought --- and apparently I'm very wrong here --- that the Federation paradigm was kinda like email. And the only email I want blocked is a domain where every single user is malicious, not a domain run by a malicious entity which has normal people as users, who aren't necessarily very tech literate.
I don't actually care, but I just find it a little confusing tbh.
I'm actually curious about "Embrace Extend Extinguish": What can they do? They "extend" the ActivityPub protocol in a proprietary way, ok. Doesn't mean any other instance has to use that, no?
Ok, that would mean if an instance doesn't follow that extension, it can't interact optimally with Threads, but how does it matter? To me it seems all that can be lost by that is the content/user base that Threads brings into the Fediverse and then we are at the same point as we would be if we defederated immediately.
Maybe I'm missing something here?
I think this article, How to kill a decentralized network, gives one of the best explanations, because it uses a real world example of how it has happened in the past.
I guess it is impossible to say what would have happened if Google never used XMPP. To me it mostly looks like google joined XMPP and made it way bigger than it was before and eventually left it again, making it small again. But is it worse than before Google even joined?
Maybe, but can we say for sure?
Maybe the lesson is not "don't let the big corporate players in", but rather "make sure the development of the underlying protocol itself is done in an open way".
If Google/Meta adds proprietary extensions, just don't add them to the main protocol. If they leave the protocol again or changed their implementation in a way that is largely incompatible with the open version, nothing is lost than what they brought in initially.
Doesn't that make sense?
I think a good example is how Slack started off by having good IRC integration, then slowly added features which were incompatible with IRC, and finally terminated IRC integration.
So clearly, Slack killed IRC, right? (...of course they didn't!)
I see the potential situation with Threads as similar.
the problem occurs when most of the content comes from Meta (they will likely have the vast majority of Fediverse users). especially if major communities exist on their instance. when meta decides to no longer support fedi integration, those in the fedi are forced to decide between staying with their communities by ditching the fedi and moving to threads or having many of their communities ripped away.
meta will do this at some point as a play to draw users to them, but we can decide if we want to be affected when that comes to pass.
I think most people simply just don't know how federation works and they imagine that defederating blocks Facebook from accessing your content when in reality it's the exact opposite; it places one way mirror between us from which only they can see thru. There's also some great irony in the fact that they're talking about genocide while advocating for using the nuclear option to block Facebook despite the massive number of innocent casualties it'll cause.
EDIT: Turns out I was mistaken. Defederation indeed does stop the flow of data both ways.
Brother these things are in no way the same. One is a tech giant knowingly aiding and abbeting governments who are ethnically cleansing their country and another is not being able to see posts from a different instance. The only great irony is you calling them innocent casualties.
It's a comparison. By definition they're not the same thing but there are similarities; you're doing something that affects 100% of the userbase because you have an issue with 2% of them.
This is like comparing requiring students in schools to wash their hands to genocide. The scale is the same but the impact is vastly different, and if you don't want to wash hands (or be defederated) you can just move. Except for changing activitypub instances is even easier than changing schools and both are easier than leaving Palestine.
You should think of a better comparison cause this one sucks.
Also no. You're doing something that affects 100% of users because the node these users use is malicious. The problem is the underlying structure not the people using said structure. Maybe this makes them stop using said structure.
Its like being upset that I dont answer unknown numbers. "Well only 10% are scammers so you're affecting 100% of calls"
it places one way mirror between us from which only they can see thru
What do you mean by this? Even if Meta would collect data from defederated servers (I don't think they would), it would be massively more complicated than if they were federated.
Federarting means there's a two-way road between your instance and threads.net and traffic can flow both ways. When you defederate it stops the traffic flow from threads.net to you but the traffic from you to them is unchanged. Even if every single instance defederates them they can still see all the content that's posted there. Nobody else just wont see any of theirs. Only your instance admins know your email, ip-address and so on but all your posts and messages are publicly available to anyone and you can't stop them from accessing it.
It's basically the same thing as blocking an user. You wont no longer see their messages but they will see yours.
EDIT: Turns out I was mistaken. Defederation indeed does stop the flow of data both ways.
I hate to admit when I've been wrong but this seems to be one of those cases. I tried to use my lemmyNSFW account to view content on a instance that doesn't federate with them and I indeed can't see any. I stand corrected.
There’s also some great irony in the fact that they’re talking about genocide while advocating for using the nuclear option to block Facebook despite the massive number of innocent casualties it’ll cause.
Sir/Madame, not being able to see some online content is nothing at all like having your family members murdered in real life.
It’s a comparison. By definition they’re not the same thing but there are similarities; you’re doing something that affects 100% of the userbase because you have an issue with 2% of them. Like Israel fighting Hamas and the entire Gaza population having to suffer because of it.
The thing is your article blames meta for not doing something that would be impossible on lemmy by design. Meta didn't act to silence messages calling for violence but there is no mechanism to do this top down on lemmy only by defederating instances or individual communities/instance admin banning posts. Exactly the same thing could happen here, if the user base ever got large enough.
@VirtualOdour the point of me sharing that article was just to try to put a human dimension on genocide for that callous person above.
Meta have been implicated in at least two genocides now and openly obstructed the International Criminal Court in their investigation of one of them. I think people are only pointing that out to show how evil Meta are.
But if you want to know what specifically they will do to ActivityPub, the other article I shared has more direct relevance: How to kill a decentralized network.
If lemmy was as popular as Facebook then exactly the same thing would have happened. Lemmy is designed not to have the top down control which the article says Facebook should have used to hide posts.
You can't blame Facebook for something if you support an alternative where it wouldn't even be possible to avoid that thing.
If you're willing to acknowledge that we can move on and you can try and say in simple terms what you think meta did to obstruct the ICC, try to be accurate and concise.
Your topic's a false premise. First of all it's totally valid to criticize someone for something that couldn't apply in the current situation, because what's being criticized is the decisions and attitudes that their actions reveal.
Meta's refusal to moderate a website they control after multiple warnings that it was being used to incite genocide speaks to their institutional values, accountability, and culture.
By contrast, plenty of instance owners have shown responsibility, accountability, and good faith about admins moderating the instances they control.
try to be accurate and concise.
Lol that's condescending, and it's also a bit offputting. I come here to bloviate thank you very much. :)
The thing is though, I'm not part of the wider conversation about facebook above. You glommed onto a very simple, very specific point I made to someone else about the human impact of social media incitements to genocide.
What Meta did to the ICC isn't even related to my above link (which is about the Tigray genocide, not the Myanmar genocide). But it's well-documented, and I'm not interested in rehashing it here.
I dont care if they scrape my comments I just wouldnt want to see sneaky "promoted" posts aka ads and I enjoy the idea of boycotting facebook.
Ultimately the decision is for the instances owners and admins to make, not ours. I will just migrate to one that doesnt federate with facebook if I have to.
I just wouldnt want to see sneaky “promoted” posts aka ads
I don't quite see how that would even work. Those posts would need to be coming from individual users rather than from Facebook itself and you can just block those users. Facebook can display ads in between posts on their own app but those wont be visible to people using other apps.
Hopefully fediverse admins are sensible enough to ban users who are blatantly posting advertisements. I know that a lot are, but I also know that a few of the bigger servers tend to turn a blind eye to that kind of thing.
Facebook feeds its users content according to an algorithm.
Facebook and lemmy users can interact with the same user content (liking, commenting).
There are vastly more Facebook users than lemmy users.
By dint of Facebook's greater number of users, lemmy users will see the most popular content that is fed algorithmically to Facebook users.
Conclusion: lemmy users are being fed content by the Facebook algorithm (in this still, thankfully hypothetical, scenario).
Like imagine Facebook promotes some viral post and it gets a thousands of upvotes. Any lemmy user on a federated instance, sorting by upvotes/hot/etc, is going to see that post.
That's the kind of top-down reach that is so alien to the fedi
And the only email I want blocked is a domain where every single user is malicious, not a domain run by a malicious entity which has normal people as users, who aren’t necessarily very tech literate.
You'll never get the tech iliterate people to switch to the rest of the Fediverse otherwise. Defederating Threads is about making it as bad as possible for its users - it's about hurting Meta and stemming its bad influence on the web.
Threads exists for the sole purpose of capturing some of the people showing interest in the fediverse as twitter dies and keeping them in the facebook ecosystem. Once it believes it has exhausted this window of opportunity it will defederate just as it de-federated it's xmmp based messenger service once it thought it had the upperhand.
Every server that defederates from meta preemptively is working to build a resilient community that will survive this inevitable scenario. Every server that federates with meta will become dependent on it then collapse as their users leave to join threads once that becomes their only option to continue interacting with the threads users that their social experience was built on.
Your post only concerns threats to an individual user re scraping or malicious interactions. The threat meta poses to the fediverse is systemic.
In the long run the meta-blocking servers are the fediverse. The meta-federating servers might see some short term attention but in the long run will have the same fate as those that hitched their wagons to the metaverse.
Fediverse
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.