Yea agree, not a fan of “Meta”. But I think limiting who can use federated networks kinda goes against the federated nature of such networks. What’s next, we’ll have a centralized blacklist of lemmy instances.
This is mentioned in pretty much every thread but I haven’t seen anyone apply the theory to the fediverse. The second step is for threads to create features that lure people over from Lemmy (or activitypub). So are the people saying eee by extension saying they’ll move to threads from their current server because threads have a bigger and better development team?
I’ve been saying exactly this since the news dropped. I fully understand people being worried, but I haven’t seen a concrete pathway to damage that doesn’t involve meta-hating users moving over to a meta product.
Past performance is indicative of future behavior. Simple as that. Meta has proven that at every single turn they will do what’s profitable, not what’s best for the user.
they’ll move to threads because threads will be incompatible with the rest of fediverse (thread essentially defederate themself), and if most content is being posted in threads, they’ll move there (since they can’t access it from other instance)
this has happened before, such as
MSN messenger breaking compatibility with AOL IM (MSN wins since it got 95% market share)
MS Office doing obfuscation to their office file data to prevent FOSS editor like LibreOffice from rendering it correctly
Meta’s decision to work towards federation does need to be taken with a lot of salt. Corporations using open platforms or open source to make their money has always resulted in power imbalances that, left unchecked, may become impossible to solve without concessions from said corporation, or else [X] thing just gets hung out to dry.
You have to hope the people running that company understand that these problems exist, and actively work against ruining everything for everyone else that relies on it.
The problem is when bad actors enter the situation. Meta has no interest in being a part of the community, they want to take it over and commercialize it.
Still no. If you feel ostracized because your bigoted viewpoint isn’t welcome, then you should take a hint and stfu instead of crying about it. I don’t feel bad about not welcoming hatred and for treating it the same way it treats others. Your dog whistles aren’t welcome either.
So text-based Instagram with 70 million regular users and some brand accounts is hatred? Serious reality distortion field you have there. Well, Lemmy.World has not blocked Threads at the moment, so I’m alright and actually not crying at all. It is people like you who want to police what other people look at.
Maybe you should lobby to block Trump’s Truth Social which is an Mastodon instance full of actual racists.
The nice part about federated networks is that if you disagree, you can just move instances. Nobody is bound to the will of the admins like with traditional centralized social media
Is there yet a way to fully migrate a lemmy account like a Mastodon one? Otherwise, “just move instances” isn’t great advice, it’s still having to start over. We need that ability imo or we’re losing a major benefit of being federated.
Meta has the right to join the fediverse, but instance admins have the right to defederate from them. If a user doesn’t like that, they can make an account with another instance. How does it go against “fediverse principles?”
Disagree. It should be up to the individual USERS to have the freedom to block whatever user or instance that they want. Honestly the whole point of the fediverse is just freedom and not being at the whim of some god figure overlord
It would be great if that was the way it worked, unfortunately right now it’s granular to the instance level, not user level. Not sure it’s even possible to get it down to user level unless every user runs their own instance which is unlikely to ever happen. The data has to live somewhere, so we need instances or instance -equivalent to host the data. Maybe if they get it down to where hosting your own instance is super easy one-click ordeal. Then each user would be truly in control.
or you know, just don’t use instances that have admins that are powerhungry, authoritarian, censorious dicks. (If you’re looking for a good mastodon instance like that, I’d recommend checking out qoto.org)
I think one can be “open” to a fault. If you cling to principles and morale for the sake of it and without exception or nuance, you set yourself up to be exploited or worse. Many things, entities, interactions in life contradict each other and it is important to set boundaries and make decisions for yourself. Because life and people are multi-faceted and aren’t nice and clean and perfect, which blind, naive idealism fails to take into account. The keyword here is nuance.
Many big tech companies run on greed and inhumane, unhealthy, invasive practices for the sake of pure, blind, unsustainable growth and profit. And I would argue that this is one of the driving factors of the fediverse even existing. If you don’t clearly separate yourself from these practices, then we all can simply use Reddit. But people create, maintain and use alternatives for a reason. Not taking a stance or action against what you want to escape from, even openly inviting it for the sake of being open and on a morally high horse makes simply no sense.
Idealists won’t like to hear this, but it’s the same with peace. Look at Ukraine to have a recent example. Most people want to live and prosper in peace. That is natural and desirable. But there are always some, who profit from war and who try to destroy things, disregarding the fate of others. Or political systems that want to expand territory and exploit / convert whole populations. When the desire for peace is only one-sided, and all attempts of talking or peaceful incentives fail, you can either protect yourself forcefully or be stolen from, raped, tortured, deported or murdered, watching your homeland be turned into ashes and those you love suffer for decades from the consequences.
In the same way, when the desire for openness, humane fairness without exploitation of users is one-sided, you have to draw a line and take a clear stance to defend that “safe space” you seeked in the first place from entities and principles that contradict it. And we have decades of clear evidence how big tech, especially Facebook / Meta operates, they are known to invade user privacy, strive for one-sided power, try everything to avoid or circumvent legal regulation. They have more than earned to be excluded from a place created to offer something better, healthier. And it’s not like we hurt feelings here, it’s a corporation, a virtual, soulless entity.
I can only speak for myself and do what I deem is good for me, so I’ll migrate to Lemmy.ml, because at least they have the balls to stay true to a concept, even if it involves difficult or ugly decisions. And even if blocking Meta won’t fully “protect” the fediverse, at least it is a clear message and limits the amount of power they can achieve and the amount of damage they can do here.
My many years of experience on the Internet has taught me that once the unwashed hordes of the public show up and start slinging shit around, that’s when your website dies if you like having intelligent discourse on it.
The article was a nice read. I’m surprised that there is either no awareness or discussion in the privacy conscious tech crowd over here on the lack of privacy from anonymous bad actors. Everyone seems to only care about Meta, who are bad, but the most they will do with our data is advertise to us. The other bad actors enabled by ActivityPub can actually doxx, redistribute, save our posts, messages.
I agree that the fediverse isn’t currently super privacy-friendly, although I think there’s also an inherent limitation to privacy on a social network since it’s all about sharing things. I view privacy as having the control over WHAT I share, with WHOM I share it with, and WHEN, and I get that moreso with the fediverse IMO. I choose what information I share, what I follow, etc. The major difference to me is that Lemmy isn’t tracking me elsewhere around the web like Facebook, Google, Pinterest, etc do. The big sites also save our posts and messages even when they claim not to, because things that are deleted are very rarely ever truly deleted.
I would appreciate the ability to send no-knowledge encrypted DMs here on Lemmy. But using PGP is not difficult, will guarantee only the recipient can read the message, and is a skill that everyone who uses the internet should be able to do anyways.
being open to everything is not better though, and being open to meta specifically will threaten and lower the quality of the place. lemmy.world should defederate with threads
You’re in no position dictate what an instance should or should not do. If you don’t like what an instance is doing, you’re welcome to join another one or start your own, that’s the beauty of decentralization.
As users, we have every right to express an opinion and to ask the admin to consider taking an action. As you say, if you don’t like it, join another instance.
Offensive language won’t be tolerated here? According to who? You clearly don’t understand federation if you can’t grasp that you can be part of two different instances that aren’t federated. What you’re doing is trying to impose your will on other people who want nothing to do with it. Calling that fucking stupid is the most polite way I can frame that attitude.
Yes, this is the problem with PHP. It gets a lot of people programming who shouldn’t be. I still have nightmares about the PHP code one of my managers at a previous job wrote.
Exactly, programming shouldn’t be easily accessible. Anybody following a tutorial can make a simple page working. And they think they know programming, get hired by people not knowing any better, and here we are, debugging supid shit instead of doing nice things.
I’ve heard that a lot, but I think it’s an outdated view.
Programming should be easy, or at least easier. That’s a view shared by everyone who writes and contributes to documentation on all languages and also those who develop the languages as well. (With varying success).
Every damned one of us was a shit coder when we started, that’s part of the process - not least amongst us who are self taught. Yet some go on to do great things and be wonderful coders (including yourself, no doubt).
You had a bad experience, fair enough, but it’s a big brush to tar everyone with. I think everyone should be a programmer. If nothing else it teaches them a little how software actually works and that’s a good thing.
I disagree completely. Sure, there is a learning curve and you’re not going to be a great programmer day one, that is what college and junior programmer positions are for. But the idea that programming can be easy is bullshit.
Programming is inherently difficult, and there is no way to reduce this. Read ‘No Silver Bullet’ by Fred Brooks, it’s as true today as when it was written back in 1986. Not everyone should be a programmer, just like not everyone should be a doctor, or a painter, or a formula 1 driver. People have unique talents and the idea that this is something that everyone should be able to do is frankly ridiculous.
Great! It would be a boring world if we all thought alike.
Programming is inherently difficult,
That’s where we differ. I don’t think it is - and I’m not saying that because I think I’m good, it’s because programming is just a different way of thinking - that’s why there’s books like “Zen and the art of computer programming” and “The Tao of programming”. (I haven’t read “No Silver Bullet” but I’ll keep an eye open. I was actually writing code back in 1986 so it might be interesting to compare because I think programming has changed a huge amount in that time)
Not all programming is easy, just as not all of it is hard. The range of this subject is massive, and blanket statements, pro or anti, just don’t cut it when you dig into it.
He basically splits the complexity of programming into two categories: accidental complexity and essential complexity. The accidental complexity you can fix, it’s the difficulty caused by tooling, programming languages, etc. The essential complexity, that is: the complexity caused by the problem your program is trying to solve, cannot be fixed. To quote the man:
The essence of a software entity is a construct of interlocking concepts: data sets, relationships among data items, algorithms, and invocations of functions. This essence is abstract, in that the conceptual construct is the same under many different representations. It is nonetheless highly precise and richly detailed. I believe the hard part of building software to be the specification, design, and testing of this conceptual construct, not the labor of representing it and testing the fidelity of the representation. We still make syntax errors, to be sure; but they are fuzz compared to the conceptual errors in most systems.
I don’t think it is - and I’m not saying that because I think I’m good, it’s because programming is just a different way of thinking
This different way of thinking is something that some people simply will never get, or not at the right level. I’m certainly not a great programmer but I know from experience I’m above average. I know a lot of programmers that simply cannot grasp things above a certain level of abstraction. These are college-educated programmers with years of experience. The easiest way to tell is that bad programmers turn simple problems into complicated code, and good programmers turn complicated problems into simple code.
Nice quote - but I don’t think it does hold up as truly as it did in the 80s. There is an unimaginable wealth of systems and design tools available now that were not around then. Even something take for granted like a gui schema designer - hell, even SQL itself wouldn’t be around until almost a decade later, and that was partly designed to simplify database queries. Every step like that has simplified what we do today. Debugging tools are light years ahead of when I was writing C in the early 90s. Debugging then was pretty much “try and compile it and then fix the errors”. Now there’s linters, memory profilers, automatic pipelines and all the rest of that. Much of that is offset by the fact we do far more complicated things than we did, and that those very tools mean there’s a lot more to learn and master beyond the mere language.
I do concede and agree with your last paragraph. Design is more important than implementation, and elegance of code and concept is a timeless beauty. One of the hardest things I’ve had to learn is that thinking about coding is often far more productive than actually coding, and too many times I’ve been a busy fool, re-writing and starting over many times because I later found out a better way.
All those tools you mention would fall under the accidental complexity header. There have been many advances in that field. But none of those tools reduce the essential complexity. SQL doesn’t mean you don’t have to think about how you organize your data. You still need to think about things like normalization. Even ORM doesn’t free you from this.
Same goes for debuggers, sure it’s easier to inspect code at runtime but that doesn’t help you design good code.
You can reduce this accidental complexity but in the end there is always the core of the essential complexity. The difference with past decades is that for a simple program the accidental complexity would be a huge part of the total complexity, so in that regard you’re right. It has become a lot easier to write trivial programs where the essential complexity is very low.
This may apply to a lot of hobby-level / beginner projects, but in the end it doesn’t have as much an impact on what we do as professionals. As you said, I spend a lot more time thinking about coding than actually writing code. Especially as I got older and more experienced. As a senior developer I write a fraction of the code I did as a junior, but I’m working on more complicated problems as well.
lemmy.ml
Oldest