we can go further, somethingsomething StreetPass

If you skip the technobabble and politics about free (as in freedom), what’s left? If it’s just a platform that feels more complicated to sign up, because you have to learn about instances and it’s not clear which one you want, plus your friends aren’t there, plus it’s just 45k users total instead of a lot…?

The complication arises by making the mistake of pointing people to the backend, and the backends confusing matters by presenting themselves as platforms like existing corporate platforms. As noted, you reduce that by inviting them to join or browse your respective instance (or if you’re self-hosting, to whichever open instance you think is amenable).

You’re right though that some positive thing would help, and that’s really down to whatever positive thing you found and want to share with others about these spaces. For me it’s as simple as them being open and ad-free. I’m reminded of it every time I find myself trying to browse enclosures without having an account and they simply won’t allow me to browse much before prompting me to sign up or subscribe to view more.

In a way that’s kind of the irony of the fediverse, a major feature is that you don’t have to sign up at all in many(most?) cases.

Yeah, it’s not without faults, so ProtonMail and similar may be a good compromise, or encrypting and sending longer documents. Ideally one day email will be rebuilt from the ground up with encryption.

Also to address your later comments, E2EE messengers are great, but short form writing is simply a different use case from long form.

Exactly. The need/desire to write longer form like this may not come up as often with other more immediate means to communicate, but when it does, email’s there to serve its purpose.

Ah…Yeah, that’s what I get for skimming. Tbh it’s a little confusing, but thankfully it’s not stuff viewers need to know necessarily.

Peertube is like an alternative site to youtube. It’s a different place to post your video (you can’t use it to watch YouTube videos to my knowledge)

This is mostly right, I think I’d only clarify that it’s not a singular site, much like Lemmy isn’t, as instead it’s more site software to spin up a YouTube-like video hosting site. Also you’re right that you can’t use it to watch videos as you might via Piped/Invidious, unless the creator has also posted their video to a PeerTube site/instance.

Last little point that’s not super important to know for regular folks is that it’s not using bittorrent for helping distribute video loads, it’s WebRTC. Still peer to peer, just a different approach to it.

To my knowledge, it hasn’t, but that’s not the main point of my comment so much as expressing my distrust of the parent company. In that respect, no, I’m not aiming to make a claim that Meta/Facebook have had to disclose messages from WhatsApp to law enforcement and essentially undermine its end-to-end-encryption.

Nevertheless, I think it’s reasonable and fair to be suspicious of Meta/Facebook given its history of questionable actions concerning people’s data. They’re in the business of using people’s data for marketing/advertising purposes, not safeguarding it, after all.

It sounds like it, although it looks like it’s a 6-digit pin instead from the image in the article.

There’s also this additional info directly from Facebook’s blog post about all this:

When your chats are upgraded, you will be prompted to set up a recovery method, such as a PIN, so you can restore your messages if you lose, change or add a device.

Personally I’m about as willing to trust this as WhatsApp’s end-to-end encryption, given Meta/Facebook’s involvement, but thought it was worth keeping folks here apprised of the situation in the corporate space.

Ghost Commander may work for this. I’ve not tried sftp myself, but on opening it I do see the option there, so it might be worth a try.

ty, be sure to tend to u and ur pets’ bone-connected (if so) eating assistants

This headline and article are begging to be in c/NotTheOnion, yeah.

Screams:
My Christian nationalist flag has people asking a lot of questions already answered by my flag.

This is a good list although i generally wouldnt bother listing yacy. Its only as good as the people adding to the list and thats not a lot.

Isn’t that last point a good reason to mention it, to possibly increase the amount of people contributing?

Ngl, I don’t like this justice but I like the hypothetical legal test of whether posting cat photos is state action:

Suppose, to paraphrase a hypothetical offered by Justice Neil Gorsuch, that an official uses their Facebook account both to post cat pictures and to discuss official business. Now suppose that one of that official’s constituents hates cats, and posts so many nasty responses to the cat-related posts that the official eventually blocks the constituent. Because blocking this constituent will also exclude them from the official’s government-related content, did the government official violate the First Amendment here?

I could go on at some length listing the many difficult questions that various justices raised over the course of the arguments. But the important overarching point here is that these cases are very difficult. And it’s not clear that it is possible to come up with a clear-cut legal test that will easily allow judges to distinguish between state and private action online.

Regarding the second paragraph, are there really no government policies in the U.S. regarding operating separate personal/work accounts if one is going to be communicating work-related info to the public on social media? It seems like that alone would have sufficed to mitigate the headaches of these cases.

Beware that iirc, unlike Tor an[d] I2P, Freenet leaks your IP, so I recommend to use a VPN.

If it’s using basic peer-to-peer tech, I suspect you may be right. Been awhile since I looked into it, and as I recall it wasn’t really built for privacy so much as another way to share info with few limitations (hence the free in freenet), so it’d make sense if it did.

Has anyone thought about how we can bring more people over to the Fediverse? My friends and family are all still on the Big Tech platforms like FB and Insta, and I doubt I will be able to convince them to switch over to a Fediverse platform, especially if they themselves don’t see any of their connections using the platform too. How does the Fediverse community plan on attracting more users over?

This is a common question from newcomers, and it’s not necessarily a bad one, just worth being aware of this to better understand some of the responses you may see. Something else to keep in mind is that there is no collective, united Fediverse community in the way that you might sorta see on some bigger tech platforms (albeit even on those, there’s not really a singular community either).

What this means is that there’s no combined community effort from folks across the Fediverse to attract new users, and since it’s all loosely connected communities driving it all, there’s no market push to popularize them as you’re more apt to see from the tech industry. In fact, if you wander into some parts of the Fediverse, you’ll find some folks far happier to keep their communities small and to themselves for a variety of reasons, sometimes conflating the tech and their community (i.e. a popularization of Lemmy as tech wouldn’t mean their little Lemmy community instance had to link up with every other one).

That said, there are also plenty of folks around here interested in the question and planning/discussing drawing in more folks. Some of those discussions being about improvements to the technology to make it less jank and comfortable for less technically inclined users, others about how to present it without getting in the weeds of the tech details, and some just by trying to post interesting/entertaining content to keep folks interested past a glance. There’s as many ways to approach it as there are Fediverse communities, and so there’s not really been any one way that people have been going about it.

I generally don’t believe in intellectual property, I think it creates artificial scarcity and limits creativity. Of course the real tragedies in this field have to do with medicine and other serious business.

But still, artists claiming ownership of their style of painting is fundamentally no different. Why can’t I paint in your style? Do you really own it? Are you suggesting you didn’t base your idea mostly on the work of others, and no one in turn can take your idea, be inspired by it and do with it as they please? Do my means have to be a pencil, why can’t my means be a computer, why not an algorythm?

Limitations, limitations, limitations. We need to reform our system and make the public domain the standard for ideas (in all their forms). Society doesn’t treat artists properly, I am well aware of that. Generally creative minds are often troubled because they fall outside norms. There are many tragic examples. Also money-wise many artists don’t get enough credit for their contributions to society, but making every idea a restricted area is not the solution.

People should support the artists they like on a voluntary basis. Pirate the album but go to concerts, pirate the artwork but donate to the artist. And if that doesn’t make you enough money, that’s very unfortunate. But make no mistake: that’s how almost all artists live. Only the top 0.something% actually make enough money by selling their work, and that’s is usually the percentile that’s best at marketing their arts, in other words: it’s usually the industry. The others already depend upon donations or other sources of income.

We can surely keep art alive, while still removing all these artificial limitations, copying is, was and will never be in any way similar to stealing. Let freedom rule. Join your local pirate party.

Reformatted for easier readability.

Probably all articles I have read on it by mainstream media were somehow wrong. It often feels like reading a political journalist discussing about quantum mechanics.

Yeah, I view science/tech articles from sources without a tech background this way too. I expected more from this source given that it’s literally MIT Tech Review, much as I’d expect more from other tech/science-focused sources, albeit I’m aware those require scrutiny just as well (e.g. Popular Science, Nature, etc. have spotty records from what I gather).

Also regarding your last point, I’m increasingly convinced AI creators’ (or at least their business execs/spokespeople) are trying to have their cake and eat it too in terms of how much they claim to not know/understand how their creations work while also promoting how effective it is. On one hand, they genuinely don’t understand some of the results, but on the other, they do know enough of how it works to have an idea of how/why those results came about, however it’s to their advantage to pretend they don’t insofar as it may mitigate their liability/responsibility should the results lead to collateral damage/legal issues.

Since it appears there’s precedent for this falling apart, hopefully Cleveland’s government will have done their research and be prepared, albeit I’m not necessarily optimistic either.

Thanks for added background! I haven’t been monitoring this area very closely so wasn’t aware, but I’d have thought a publication that has been would then be more skeptical and at least mention some of this, particularly highlighting disputes over the efficacy of the Glaze software. Not to mention the others they talked to for the article.

Figures that in a space rife with grifters you’d have ones for each side.