The organisation that happily cooperated with fascism in Italy you mean?

The child raping one?

Yeah, it’s not what he’s saying. But the formulation - sending a child away from the womb of it’s mother" - is fundamentally fucked up because it completely removes the mother from the equation. It doesn’t even bother to explicitly deprive her of the control over her body - it simply doesn’t recognise her existence at all.

I think, more than anything, that’s why this line of talking is fucked up. It kind of assumes totalitarianism where no matter what, it’s at least not the choice of the individual women/owners of the wombs.

What moderate Catholics will use as a defence is, I guess, the use of the word “child”. No reasonable person would consider a lump of 30 cells a “child”. But we all know the pope thinks it’s a child as soon as the sperm hits the egg, so fuck that as well.

I’m this formulation it sounds like he’s talking about government mandated abortion - it’s like it’s happening against the will of the owner of the womb.

Clearly that’s not what he’s talking about, but in a narrow charitable interpretation, he would be correct that the government has no fucking business controlling whatever is going on inside women’s wombs.

The official story is that Meta is worried about being sued by people suddenly seeing their content pushed to some random website without their consent if it’s enabled by default, so they won’t risk enabling it by default. At least not before the fediverse is huge enough that everything you post going everywhere on the internet is the expected behaviour.

Fair enough really. I wouldn’t want to be sued for that either, and they obviously cannot expect Congress to understand… anything.

Judging character and identifying psychopaths are two wildly different skill sets, though arguably one depends on the other.

I’m slowly getting better (more experienced) at identifying psychopaths and narcissists, but holy shit it can be difficult.

They define decentralisation as an even distribution of users? Or did I get that wrong skimming the paper?

This seems arbitrary. Mastodon is a decentralised network, no matter how big Mastodon.social is. Lemmy is equally decentralised, even though there’s a dominant actor.

The other hubs in the network don’t revolve around mastodon.social/lemmy.world. they connect to each other bilaterally - if the central hubs disappeared over night it wouldn’t affect them all that much.

I think the notion that decentralised networks can’t have hubs of varying sizes is plain wrong, and a fundamental misunderstanding of what decentralized means.

Pretty deadly for the sherpas though, who have to deal with the shit of the rich idiot tourists going there in massive numbers. So if they want to insist it’s extreme, at least there’s that.

It’s the Lemmy developers, who run Lemmy.ml and Lemmygrad.ml, who decided not to promote Lemmy.world on their “about Lemmy” website. This is completely unrelated to the admins of Lemmy.world. :)

Not of Lemmy.world, where you are writing from. And I’m not even writing you from Lemmy. :)

The developers of the platform are not in control over what it’s used for. Which is what’s neat about these place.

Most people are fine. All social media has some bad eggs - admittedly FOSS/GNU/Linux communities are prone to attract a specific breed of them. But they can generally be ignored pretty easily.

That’s obviously hyperbolic, but it does unleash some fun mechanisms. I think it’s fair to assume many Swifties are apolitical - the demography of young voters it’s traditionally hard to get to vote. Not more so than previous generations, it’s just that they have other things they care about in their lives, unlike the old farts who always vote and always vote red.

This endorsement will inevitably cause some GOP furniture fucker or another to attack Swift in public. And that’s when this becomes properly important - you do not want to start a war against Swifties in the current political environment.

But I wouldn’t write Trump off before his dead, buried, and millions are doing pilgrimage to piss on his grave. Until then, we’ve learned better than to overestimate the American electorate.

Very cool!

Do you be have any idea how tolling scraping these data is for the servers?

If this is something you want to keep working on, maybe it could be combined with a sort of Threadiverse fund raiser: we collectively gather funds to cover the cost of scraping (plus some for supporting the threadiverse, ideally), and once we reach the target you release the map based on the newest data and money is distributed proportionally to the different instances.

Maybe it’s a stupid idea, or maybe it would add too much pressure into the equation. But I think it could be fun! :)

I have a feeling not many Swifties would vote for Trump anyway, but Swift telling them to register and to go out and vote is probably going to make a dent.

Yeah, for sure. Doing something great doesn’t shield you from also making some really shitty decisions or holding some god-awful positions.

I just think it’s good to keep a nuance of language. Too many open source developers burn out, and a hostile community is listed as one of the reasons too often. There will always be disagreements, and there are valid ways of voicing it, but one should never forget that there is humans on the other side and remain kind. :)

The devs are working hard providing a public service that they make available for everyone. And the product they’ve developed is pretty impressive, in spite of its shortcomings.

They hold some opinions I disagree with pretty strongly, and I’m not a fan of every decision they make. But they’re creating a truly common good, and for that they deserve praise. From a technical perspective, they have created something completely new that serves thousands of users and constitutes a system of huge complexity. They very much do not suck.

Anyone who thinks any person maintaining an open source project “sucks” should feel free to fork the project, fix whatever they’re not happy with, and maintain the repository and handle commits and all the shit that goes down in managing a large open source project. After dedicating all this time to people, some random ingrate will inevitably disagree with some minor decision they’ve made and decide that they “suck”.

Yeah. If they pushed it to the bottom of the list, or even removed them from the list but kept the user count, I could kind of understand it. But censoring them completely for being too successful seems like shooting yourself in the foot.

Lemmy.world is doing great and I’m happy for it and all that, but… 20 000 monthly active users does not exactly make them a tech giant that needs to be kept in check just yet. Ideally, instances of 20 000 active users should be quite normal at some point, and having stress tested the software before then should, one assumes, be a good thing.

I’m amazed at how fast this place has grown since the first time I saw a Lemmy instance (way before Reddit API drama), or since the first time I snooked around Mastodon (before Twitter exodus) for that matter. So I guess I’m inherently optimistic by the fact that where newer users might see little activity as a bad sign, I see a little activity as a huge improvement on what the status quo was not so long ago.

On a technical side, open source projects also tend not to benefit from growing too fast. It seems to me Fediverse platforms currently have a healthy activity level for the stage of completion they are in. Lemmy certainly grew faster than it could handle for a while, and arguably Mastodon suffered from the same.

The main reason I’m hopeful about the social web is, however, that it makes no sense any more to create a new platform that does not support it. No matter what kind of social networking site you’re making, proprietary or open, you’re going to want to make it ActivityPub enabled, simply because it gives you a user base right off the bat.

And furthermore, it encourages the development of new platforms, precisely because you don’t need to establish yourself with a whole bunch of users. According to fedidb my platform of choice, PieFed, has 124 active users right now. It would not have been a very interesting corner of the old web.

I don’t think the established user base here is going anywere, and I think future developments will feed into the ecosystem. So I’m pretty hopeful. But it is going to take time before all sorts of niche communities have made themselves a federated home.

Bluesky and Threads will fight it out over microblogging, while Mastodon will stick around as a smaller less corporate alternative. A year from now people on both platforms can probably follow my Mastodon handle anyway, so I don’t really care all that much.

Also, consider making an effort to positively interact with organisations that have done/are attempting to do the migration, assuming you care about them being here.

Chances are they will count the number of interactions they receive in order to assess whether or not it’s worth staying around. Pressing the like/upvote/favourite button costs very little, and gives a strong signal that they should stick around. Commenting something positive and relevant or boosting their content is also great, but it takes a bit more commitment.

Not considering the costs of hosting infrastructure for downloads, developing Fediverse integration in software is an extremely complicated task, and retrofitting it into existing software is no joke.

A more realistic starting point is probably to follow them on Mastodon, ( @Retromags@mstdn.plus ) interacting with their posts and trying to spread them, and to try to build up a fediverse presence for them. Then eventually, if they find that they get the majority of their interactions through the fediverse, they might consider merging their comment sections.

I think alternative social media needs to be decentralized. There’s just no other way it can be sustainable. Cohost was centralized - of course it couldn’t stand a chance. Never mind all the other issues, which are obviously equally important.

For me, the fact that we are having this conversation on the social web is solid evidence pointing in the opposite direction of your concerns. I counted contributors from eight different websites and at least three different software platforms only in this comment section of twelve comments.

Alternative social media platforms have never looked so healthy!