mozz

For as long as this article is, it is remarkably free of journalism. It is basically a press release from Meta saying that they're planning to implement Threads in a few months, and don't feel like saying more about it than that.

“Do we adapt the protocol to be able to support this?” Lambert asks. “Or do we try to do some kind of interesting, unique implementation?”

This is a fascinating question, both in its lack of an answer, and in the inherent framing of the question that of course they're going to introduce incompatibilities, and the discussion is simply about how to do it.

Mastodon allows some artistic nudity

...

Additionally, specifics are still murky regarding exactly how user data will be handled after the connections between networks are established. For example, if you federate a post from Threads and decide to delete it afterwards, what happens to the cached post on the servers of the other networks?

That... is not the central question that's on people minds about how user data will be handled. Presumably you were in a position to ask Rachel Lambert, the product manager at Meta who started the company's journey towards interoperability, a more obvious and salient question, and include in your article her response.

Meta is treading carefully, doing a phased implementation while continuing conversations with Fediverse leaders.

Who are these leaders and what are they saying about this? This, also, seems like it would have been pertinent information to include. If Meta's answer was "You're not allowed to know that at present," then including that response seems like it would have made the article quite a bit more informative than simply pretending it didn't occur to you to ask for any details about this.

I have a dream of creating a community where people can argue about factual questions and give citations, with an AI moderator that will award points for things that are demonstrated based on solidly factual citations and no points for things that are someone yelling with increasing firm confidence that their opinion is the right one. My dream is (a) the AI moderator could be made to work and (b) it would cause people to lose the "me and my agreeing-people are right about everything by definition" mentality that's pretty easy to develop in a forum where you can literally say anything at all without getting any feedback aside from other people telling you they agree or disagree.

Probably my dream on counts (a) and (b) both is incorrect, but it is my dream. In my dream it works.

Well.. that's why I used the smartest bears analogy. I've noticed the mods are usually pretty on top of removing content that's genuinely personally insulting or racist or what have you. But there's a wide, wide grey area of someone whose post is discussing "the issue" in a technical sense, but just comes at it from a perspective of "here's why I am right and you are wrong and not only that you're clearly not smart enough to see my side and I can't believe I need to explain it to someone again" with 0 interest in learning anything on their side. IDK if it's reasonable to try to remove comments or ban people for that behavior, but it definitely doesn't lend itself to a good discussion, and it's common (probably majority) particularly on lemmy.world and lemmy.ml.

A lot of it depends on the instance. I think there's a little bit of a smartest bears type of problem going on, with a lot of the bad-faith content coming from just ignorant and abrasive people being sincerely ignorant and abrasive, not anything that's a bot or a deliberate troll.

Personally, I've done some rounds of unsubscribing from tech and politics subs on lemmy.ml and lemmy.world, and when I've done that my amount of toxic content and interactions went way down. I think the prevalence of the exact same thing on the tech subs points to it probably being just a bad-person problem in large proportion, although I'm sure deliberate malfeasance is at the root of some of it also.

Librewolf Librewolf Librewolf

Depends on skill level and the exact nature of the flaw. There's definitely going to be a nonzero number of malicious people who lie in the middle distance "I can come up with a way to exploit flaws if I have a detailed trail of breadcrumbs" and "I can't be bothered to do an unlimited amount of work to track down how to do this, I have other malicious things on my schedule for today."

"You're 100% right, you should promote me so I can train more people to be able to run things. Things falling apart whenever someone goes away is a key sign of a bad leader, not a good one. I think I've demonstrated that I've managed this department into where it can function smoothly without me needing to put full time into it and I'd do well with an opportunity to move some other things in the company forward."

"Hey, unrelated question, what's your boss's contact info?"

It's not that hard a sentence to comprehend... it literally didn't occur to me that it might be overwhelming to anybody until you said something.

It's a quote from the article BTW, like 2 paragraphs in; in my opinion it is basically the thesis of the article summed up.

And yeah I fucked up the link

The authors of the bill definitely want to do that. I think the people voting on it are a lot of times just sort of old and out of touch and have no idea what's what. But, they know about winning elections, and if a ton of people call in, their staff definitely keeps track of that and lets them know.

Honestly, I'm not an expert but my understanding is that the argument for or against that you say doesn't really make a ton of difference. It's just the number of people that called that gets reported to them. But they do report the number and pay attention to that kind of thing.

Is it? I only just now read the sidebar and saw no politics. Presumably the mods will weigh in if it should be forbidden, but I thought this would be kind of a multipartisan type of issue.

You’re making me wonder now what weird shit I’ve wandered my way into

Edit: Welp, I looked into the drama; not enough to really understand it but enough to get a general idea. All I can really say is I want no part of it.

I'm extremely in favor of being able to interact with both Lemmy people and Mastodon people, and I wanted to switch to kbin because it seems like one of a very few solutions that can do that.

Initially I was pretty skeptical of mbin, because as a general rule the "screw the existing maintainers let's fork" people are usually mistaken about some things, but I have to say having installed and worked with both, I like mbin significantly better. My experience is minimal, and the fork was pretty recent, but mbin fixes some specific things that I had trouble with or that irked me during the short time I was working with kbin. Some significant instances also seem like they've switched over to mbin. Having kbin's "flagship" instance down for like a week didn't really help either. As I understand it, the mbin philosophy is "let's fix up the backend and get federation more solid before we do much more in terms of big new features" which I can get behind.

They're both very rough and early pieces of software, honestly as is the entire Lemmy side of things it seems to me. If you're interested because you don't want things like the 0.19 federation breakage, then I am sad to report that you might find broken stuff in kbin / mbin as well.

I honestly have no idea about the drama side of things. I wish all good things for Ernest and I'm happy with the software he 99% created. kbin has some things (e.g. combined Lemmy+Mastodon posts all in one home screen) which mbin doesn't have, which makes it kind of a shame that they're being developed apparently irrevocably separately at this point. IDK. Like I say I have no idea about that side of things.

Just my 2c as a person that installed mbin recently and likes it

(Edit: To answer the specific question, it seems like they're completely separate at this point. They split in early October with no synchronization in the separate paths of development since then, it looks like to me.)