An attempt at censorship failed because the censors didn’t understand the system they were trying to censor. I think that’s both funny and satisfying.

* If you wanted to summarise this letter on a t-shirt, it would be “People > Protocols > Platforms”. *

Can I get this under Calvin pissing on a Disney logo?

Seriously, this is now my favorite summary of the fediverse.

But someday after that, we’ll reach a point when the phrase “social media is all fake robo-crap” will be as common of knowledge as “cigarettes cause cancer” or “slot machines are a poor investment”. Adults can still smoke and slot, sure. But nobody in the developed world can say they weren’t warned of the risks.

Prescient.

Bluesky is a small indie company. It can’t afford to fight the law or implement the extensive age verification the law requires. So it chose to pull the plug and leave.

FB, X, etc, have a lot more resources to implement the extensive, invasive age verification Mississippi requires and keep fighting it in court until the decision upholding it is final.

Wow, look at all those corporate buzzwords. The focus on big generic ideas and the lack of implementation discussion or specific examples. And those perfectly spaced em dashes. Chef’s kiss. Premium chum right there 😆

But AI generation aside, this article is counterintuitive in a bad way. Save a Fediverse instance by building a real life community of “handmade goods and creative projects” based around that instance? If users cared about your instance enough to have real in person events your instance wouldn’t need saving.

If anything, it should be the other way around. Real life communities can incorporate a Fediverse instance for online socializing and building community. And those instances will thrive as long as they fill a need for the community. But creating the instance first and building a community - which is several orders of magnitude harder to do - to support the instance? Sheesh.

There should be multiple independent steps of verifying if someone should get banned and in what way. And probably integrate a good test for joining the community so that it’s more likely for people to be rational from the start (that way you don’t even have to look at so many potential flags).

How much would you pay to join a community with that level of protection for user rights? Like the old subscription based forums, some of which are still floating around the internet?

Because “multiple independent steps of verifying” is, frankly, going to be a lot of frustrating, thankless, and redundant work for moderators. I mean, we know how to safeguard people’s rights through legalistic processes. Courts do it all the time. It’s called due process. And due process is frequently a slow, complicated, and expensive pain in the ass for everyone involved. And I think very few people would want to do that work for free.

(Conveniently, this would also serve as a good test for joining such a community - people are more likely to follow the rules and act like decent human beings if a subscription they paid for is riding on it, and it would price out AI and spambots in the process.)

Is Craigslist shit now? What happened to it?

Which is why groups that aren’t targeted should be out there being supportive IRL and making it safer for targeted groups. Strength in numbers.

I’m a big fan of IRL, personally.

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

Funny how so many old punks do it, then 😆

… Britney. Britney.

Christ, that meme’s old enough to drop bombs on Yemen.

Since Democrats Republicans are so corrupt they refuse to abolish the antidemocratic electoral college and have already lost two elections they had the majority of votes in. because it lets them win despite getting a minority of votes.

FTFY.

Food Not Bombs has a cookbook with a similar style of “protest food” recipes.

Sounds like an excuse.

What I mean is: it sounds like his handlers kept making excuses and you kept accepting them because you wanted to believe them.

I know, I’m frustrated too. I dismissed the Alex Jones Fox News crowd because they were known liars, they’d lied to us for decades, and this really did seem like standard conservative projection to deflect from their candidates’ obvious mental issues.

Hate to admit it. But the conservatives were right and we were wrong.

I agree with you. I think property is theft; in an ideal world everyone would have the right to shelter and no one would own land privately. And I also think fear of housing insecurity - including the fear of a landlord extorting or evicting you - is the biggest reason America is obsessed with home ownership and I can’t criticize anybody for pursuing it. The only way to have secure housing in the US today is to own your home, and everyone has a right to secure housing.

I agree. I’m not a coder or web developer so I wasn’t sure if I was missing something, but it also looks to me like the point is “make it easier to host your own website on your home computer and home Internet connection.”

And most people don’t host their own websites, at home or on a hosted Amazon server or whatever, not because of big tech or how difficult it is to host, but because most people don’t have a good reason to. And I don’t see how this project changes that.

If you want to judge whether energy consumption is a waste, you have to consider the value of what’s consuming that energy.

Keeping the internet running? A global storehouse of humanity’s collective knowledge available to almost everyone around the world for free? The ability to communicate in real time with your family on the other side of the world, or coordinate protests in every major city in your country, or host a live meeting that would have required fifty people to fly cross country into a single zoom room?

Yeah, data farms could become more efficient and sustainable, as could we all. But I don’t begrudge the power they spend one bit. 2% of global energy consumption is low for the benefit.

Compare to Bitcoin, which accounts for 0.5% of global energy consumption, and benefits no one and nothing…