Arthur Besse
hello
- 128 Posts
- 275 Comments
- •
- 7 egun
- •
for one thing, a lot of “non-tech” people do manage to buy their own domain names somehow.
but, also: domains-as-handles doesn’t actually mean everyone needs to get their own domain. For instance, if/when feddit.de adopts ATP, you can be @sexy-peach.feddit.de on bluesky (and everywhere else that uses ATP).
I am looking forward to one day seeing Jason Scott address the anti-archival philosophy of the mastodon bdfl and his acolytes.
(perhaps activity pub allows me to notify him by using his mastodon name @textfiles@digipres.club here? probably not.)
it’s DIDs in DNS. you can read more here: https://atproto.com/guides/identity
so, your DID (which includes a pubkey) is actually your identity, and you can change your handle without changing your DID.
It doesn’t exactly say it on the page i linked, but iiuc their plan is also that while today handles are all names ending with ICANN TLDs in the future they could also be under alternative TLDs defined by ✨blockchains✨.
Yes, maybe, but I don’t see a big problem
If I used Portmaster, I would want to chat with the developers and other users and get involved with its development. But, I don’t want to make a discord account, and they haven’t bridged their discord to matrix, so, I can’t. I see this is a big problem for the project.
include it`s fuctions in Discord itself, not possible in other social networks
You can easily have bots on Matrix (or XMPP, or IRC, …).
That Discord tracks the user like FB and others, isn’t really a problem with extensions and privacy tools
🤦 yeah, no, it is still a problem. discord is proprietary software as a service, concentrating millions of people’s unencrypted communications in one place. If you block all the servers doing surveillance, you would be blocking discord itself.
I refuse to give discord an email or phone number, or to agree to their terms of service, and so do many other people. By requiring the use of discord to participate in their community, the developers of portmaster are alienating the privacy-aware demographic of discerning technologists which might otherwise use and contribute to their software. They are communicating clearly that they don’t see discord as a problem, and that means that they are not people who I want to rely on to develop privacy tools for me.
- •
- edri.org
- •
- hilabete bat
- •
- •
- tilvids.com
- •
- hilabete bat
- •
- •
- hilabete bat
- •
🎉 thanks to the developers and everyone who helped!
one bug i noticed after the upgrade: my notifications page shows unread notifications for (what i guess is) every reply i’ve ever received which was later deleted. the count in the bell icon only reflected the actual new unread notifications I had received since I last looked, but when i click to view my unread notifications then all of these old ones about deleted messages appear to be unread now.
🧲 (according to many web pages you’ll find if you search for that hash, anyway… i haven’t tried it)
- •
- 2 hilabete
- •
Would you update the community description to say that predictions should have specific dates associated with them? Falsifiable predictions are much more fun :)
also, as @graphito@beehaw.org said in the xpost:
auto redirect link from any instance:
We’re not intruding on this space. We’ve been in the fediverse for just as long or longer; the fediverse has been scrapable since 2008.
Totally. And while it was scrapable, and scraped a lot, I wish there had been a lot more systematic public scraping of the “federated social web” (as it was called before the terrible name “fediverse” was adopted) back then - I had a lot of public conversations on identi.ca and StatusNet which I wish I could still see, but they now exist only in a bunch of private databases I don’t have access to. 😢
What about public parks? Is it okay to walk around you while you’re having a conversation and record you, and then post that conversation on-line?
No, that would certainly not be okay. When I’m walking in a public park I have some expectation of privacy. If you’re walking close to me when I’m having what is intended to be a private conversation, I might notice and pause.
You are conflating private and public conversations. When we’re having a conversation in a public forum like this online, we are both posting it on-line already.
I hope archive.org posts another copy on-line so that if I want to refer to this later, after lemmy and the whole cargo-cult-deadend activitypub architecture has gone the way of the dodo, I will still be able to. And I hope they make it searchable!
Is it okay to use directional microphones to record you in such a setting?
Of course not. It’s also not possible to be sure it isn’t happening, but, if/when that is happening it is an unambiguous violation of social norms (and the law, in most places).
Doesn’t the whole recording-in-the-park thing from the Conversation give you the creeps?
Absolutely. (And now I’m wondering if you’ve noticed the reference to this film in my profile here or are bringing it up independently… 😀)
Are you saying that the fact that something is difficult to enforce against makes it okay to do, even if the person you do this to does not want it done?
Not at all. I think publicly archiving public web content is okay because I think it has a net public benefit. Better than okay, I think it is a good thing to do.
It is not because it is difficult to enforce against that I think it is okay. The fact that it is difficult to enforce against is why I think that it is not okay to give people who don’t know any better the false impression that it is not difficult to enforce against.
I could be wrong, but I interpret this post as being about Mastodon’s culture of being against search technology, which I find depressing and irritating for reasons I explained in that other thread as well as this one.
However, I just noticed a place where there is some lack of informed consent here on Lemmy: in the Lemmy UI, it appears that upvotes and downvotes are anonymous. I checked a long time ago, and realized that they weren’t really; the identity of the up or down voter is federated, but it is simply not shown by the UI.
I would assume that many (probably most) lemmy users do not realize this: admins of your own instance and all federated instances have the ability to see who upvoted and downvoted what.
It just now came to my attention that Friendica actually is showing this information publicly, in the form of “$username does not like this” for a downvote! https://rytter.me/display/4c906314-4763-d3aa-4584-11a516756414 🤣
(hey @OptimusPrime@lemmy.ml … why did you downvote that? I myself am also listed there as not liking it; I downvoted it as a test to confirm my assumption that it would show up as “does not like”, and then when I undownvoted it that event apparently didn’t get federated.)
imo these are the kind of “informed consent” issues that fediverse developers should be thinking about, rather than “how can we increase the power imbalance by making it so that only the elite are allowed to have fulltext search… in the name of justice” as so many seem to be hell-bent on doing.
i clicked a button that most lemmy users would assume is an anonymous up/down vote and now my name is listed on a 3rd party website saying i “don’t like” something (even though I tried to undo it). #thisisfine ?
are cafés public or private spaces?
They’re fundamentally private spaces, even if open to the public. Under certain zoning ordinances they may be considered a “public place” for some purposes if they are above a certain size, but this does not negate their ability to set their own rules and deny access to members of the public who violate them.
If a cafe wants to enforce a “no phones” rule, they can do so relatively effectively. If a website wants to enforce a “no robots” rule (especially if they also want to not require any login to view the content on the site) they can ultimately only pretend to be able to do that effectively.
Can I just sit at the table next to yours and stream and record your conversation with your friends?
You technically can, and if you get caught the cafe can (and should, imo) kick you out for doing so. Pretending that a provider of an electronic publishing system can enforce the same kind of social norms as are possible in physical spaces is silly at best and actually harmful at worst.
Some of my favorite bars and cafes outright prohibit the use of phones and also don’t operate CCTV, but in many places you are in fact frequently nonconsenually recorded by other people, sometimes streamed onto something like facebook live, as well as constantly by 4K CCTV with audio (in violation of the law in many localities, yet still common).
When you’re having a conversation in a physical space and you notice someone eavesdropping, you sometimes might speak less freely as a result, especially if they appear to be filming. In a public conversation online, especially one readable without even logging in, you can’t tell when someone is “eavesdropping” because you are publishing.
I’m a big proponent of enforcing privacy in online and offline spaces with technology, policy, and social norms. I’m also opposed to magical thinking. Telling people that they can semi-publish, to have some of the benefits of publishing without some of the consequences, is misleading to the point of being dishonest.
I blame facebook for conditioning people to believe that such a thing is possible, through their years of blurring the lines between public and private.
I agree with a lot of the spirit of what they’re saying, but I’m pretty sure I wouldn’t agree with their concrete applications of it (although they are unclear in the thread).
I think blurring the lines between public and private spaces is the opposite of informing consent. Cultivating unrealistic expectations of “privacy” and control in what are ultimately public spaces is actually bad, imo.
Informed consent in the fediverse should look something like a message on the signup page that says: This is a publishing system. Be aware that everything you publish here will be distributed to a bunch of other servers which are not under the control of us, the operators of your server. When you edit or delete something you’ve published, we will honor it and relay the message, but other servers may or may not honor it. There are many other tools for private (encrypted) group communication, but that is not what this is. ActivityPub is for publishing.
ps: I, for one, am glad that the Internet Archive exists!
It looks to me like both lemmy and lemmygrad are using very similar LetsEncrypt certificates, so I don’t see why any browser would trust one and not the other. Perhaps someone is actually performing an MITM attack?
Possibly unrelated, but I just noticed that all .ml domains are currently failing to resolve via google’s 8.8.8.8 including the registry’s root servers ({a,b,c,d}.ns.ml., which I currently see as 185.21.1{68..71}.1 via cloudflare’s 1.1.1.1 and another server I tried).
Everything else I’ve tried is working; just google is not resolving anything under .ml. (‽)
via imgur, the above are all non-rectangular alpha-transparency-having themes (or “faces”) used by Panic’s Audion from 1999 to 2004.
There is a sad story about how it almost became iTunes, but because the developers were already in talks with AOL they tried to invite AOL to their Apple meeting and… apparently AOL couldn’t fit it in their busy schedule, so, iTunes was instead based on an inferior player distributed by Casady & Greene called SoundJam which looked like this:
edit: TIL that in 2021 Panic released “a stripped-down version of Audion for modern macOS to view these faces”. Unfortunately all of the screenshots in the linked directory appear to be 404 now, but the faces themselves do appear to be downloadable. (Also unfortunately, there still doesn’t appear to be a player that can use them without running a proprietary OS…)
I think it would definitely be “perceived as unprofessional and silly in a negative way” by some people and also “in a net positive way - perhaps a bit silly, but memorable” by others, so, if you’re very concerned about appearing serious and professional you should probably not use such an address for these purposes.
If you emailed me from this address i would consider you a dork, and as a bit of one myself i might start calling you Fratnickle.
Hexbear currently has more than twice as many users online as Lemmy.ml and Lemmygrad combined, and a mind-boggling number of posts (total, as well as total divided by total users, etc):
Lemmygrad:
Hexbear:
These hexbear people appear to be extremely online. Them federating with us here will have a major impact on these spaces, for better and worse.
🍿
(here are similar screenshots i took of lemmy + lemmygrad last april…)
This is a nice overview of this absurd situation, but Tim Bray’s conclusions are a little surprising to me.
Yes, Mastodon traffic either is already or soon will be captured and filed permanently as in forever in certain government offices with addresses near Washington DC and Beijing, and quite likely one or two sketchy Peter-Thiel-financed “data aggregation” companies. That’s extremely hard to prevent but isn’t really the problem: The problem would be a public search engine that Gamergaters and Kiwifarmers use to hunt down vulnerable targets.
Here Bray appears to be missing the fact that those people will often end up with access to those Thiel-financed private intelligence services that will have the full-text search, while the rest of us won’t. Making things public and pretending they’re private by shunning search effectively lobotomizes everyone who abides by this custom, while still allowing the worst people to have the capability (and not only the ones working in state intelligence agencies).
What success looks like: I’d like it if nobody were ever deterred from conversing with people they know for fear that people they don’t know will use their words to attack them. I’d like it to be legally difficult to put everyone’s everyday conversations to work in service to the advertising industry. I’d like to reduce the discomfort people in marginalized groups feel venturing forth into public conversation. (emphasis mine)
This is a conflation of almost entirely unrelated issues. The first half of the first sentence is talking about non-public conversations. The solution there is obviously to use e2e encryption, so that even the servers involved can’t see it, and to build protocols and applications that don’t make it easy for users to accidentally make private things public (ActivityPub was not designed for private communication, it was designed for publishing, so, it is unlikely to ever be good at this). The second sentence is about regulating the ad industry… ok, cool, an agreeable non-sequitur. But the last sentence is talking about public conversation… and in the context of the second half of the first sentence, it carries the strong implication that Bray somehow entertains the fantasy that conversation can somehow be public and yet be uninhibited by “fear that people they don’t know will use their words to attack them”.
- •
- lemmy.ml
- •
- 4 hilabete
- •
- •
- 4 hilabete
- •
- •
- torrentfreak.com
- •
- 4 hilabete
- •
- •
- hackerboards.com
- •
- 4 hilabete
- •
- •
- hackerboards.com
- •
- 4 hilabete
- •
i’m sorry but i still don’t have a github account for this pseudonym so i haven’t opened an issue. (it would be cool if lemmy source code and issues were hosted a site that let you log in with a lemmy account… i would definitely open issues then!)