FYI: it looks like Trump is going to win the popular vote on this one as well.

Interesting that you didn’t argue against “not really being against Surveillance Capitalism”, but instead chose to use your presence on Lemmy as if that was enough reason to dismiss what I said.

Anyway, you said it yourself: if people are okay of having two online personas, one for the “acceptable in public” and other for the “things to be done in private”, why couldn’t that be case here, and your presence on Lemmy is just a decoy “for public messaging” and to keep trying to convince people that no one should be looking any further than that?

I think I get your point, but I surely don’t agree with it. Honestly, it seems that you are not really interested in dismantling Surveillance Capitalism, just afraid that “Big Fedi” will attract the attention of too many people, and ending bringing scrutiny to some marginalized groups you care about.

To put it less nicer words, you are not really concerned about privacy or Surveillance Capitalism, you are just worried about losing your echo chamber.

Your whole wordlview is hinging on two conflicting realities:

• social networking is an inherently public activity, and this is the way that the majority of people want it to be.
• the only way to be free from surveillance capitalism is by having private communications, and while this is something that affects everyone, only a minority of people seem to be actively opposed to it.

The “consent-based” social media does not work well for a small business owner who wants to promote their place to their local community, or the artisan that wants to put up a gallery with their work online. They want to be found.

If you tell them that they have to choose between (a) a social network that makes it easier for them to reach their communities or (b) a niche network that is only used by a handful of people who keeps putting barriers for any kind of contact; which one do you think they will choose?

What your recent articles are trying to do is (basically) try to shove the idea that the majority should change their behavior and completely reject a public internet. You are basically saying that the “social” networks should be "anti-"social in nature. This is, quite honestly, borderline totalitarian.

But that’s not feasible for broad data harvesting by Meta.

Why? You keep writing about how evil Meta is and their infinite amount of resources. If you really believe that, why do you think they would stop at the mere wall of “federation consent”?

So if your comment hasn’t been sent out out to other instances, they don’t have it.

What’s stopping malicious actors to create an account on the same instance as you and follow you (or your RSS feed) exclusively to pull your data?

Remember “information wants to be free”? That adage works both ways. If people want (or need) real privacy, they need to be equipped with tools that actually guarantee that their communication is only accessible to those intended to. The “ActivityPub” Fediverse is not it. They will be better off by using private Matrix (or XMPP rooms) with actual end-to-end encryption.

Unless there is some thing inherent to how Rust runs tests, the test script seems be mostly integration tests exercising the API. There does not seem to be unit tests which would be the first thing you’d need to have to test like the function that seems to be the source of the bug. (Hint, if your test suite needs to have a running db, you are not unit testing.)

As for OAuth vs LDAP: both could be used as part of a Single Sign-On solution, but the actual use cases are completely different. Having LDAP authentication would allow, e.g., to let users authenticate to Lemmy using an intranet account or (in the case of Communick) customers could use the same credentials for their Mastodon or Matrix accounts.

Reddit is not exactly the same culture as lemmy.

True but I’d argue that, once you start looking into the more niche subreddits, there is no single culture within Reddit itself, and these thousands of smaller niches are the really important ones and could’ve helped with the migration.

I want to work an issue that is open since 2020, but I can only justify dropping all my other work for that if I have enough paying customers interested in some new feature. So, help me get 50 customers to my “all in one” hosting service and I will dedicate a week to it, which should be more than enough time for even a Rust newbie like me to submit a proper PR to that issue. Ok?

If you go through the comments, you will see that the devs talk about an issue with the logic in the for loop, which “may be stopping before it should”. Writing a couple of test cases that check whether this is true or not should be trivial.

I’d expect at the very least some type of regression tests to be implemented for every bug that makes into production, to avoid cases like this one where the developers spend weeks figuring out whether their patches even fix the bug in the first place.

There is also a lesson in implementing proper tests. During these holidays I started to play a bit more with Rust and went on to look at Lemmy’s backend code. Not a single unit test in sight…

Can’t do that if you are just defederating with them in the first place like you said you would.

Are you actually thinking through your answers or just turning knee-jerk reactions?

If we don’t grow faster, we are always going to be irrelevant. To illustrate the point: Lemmy had a monstrous gift given by Reddit’s management and completely failed to capitalize on it. Later on, when my fediverser project was signing up hundreds of people per day and the conversations started by the bots were used by organic users in niche communities, the reactionaries here decided to treat everything as spam, instead of seeing it as a hook to convert more people.

Fast forward a few weeks, and now Lemmy is back to being a place to nothing but meta-conversation about the Fediverse and a handful of people pretending they are not using Reddit anymore.

You don’t need to see them just because the same network as you. But they need to be here if we want corporate social media to die.

How are you going to filter it out?

And I am talking about the people on the networks, whether it is Facebook or the instances themselves.

You want to say “I don’t want Meta to come”, but what about the people who are there?

Do you “hate” your family? Your neighbors? Co-workers? Normies?

Not only all the things you mention, but I kept thinking "Well, if they do manage to make a pivot where they are nothing but infrastructure and still manage to please Wall Street, then good for everyone:

• Users will have a way to move out if they want to do so.
• Companies that want to keep a social media presence will be able to do it from their own domains, while not having to worry about the operational aspects.
• Decentralization is still preserved.
• Transparency is still preserved.
• By becoming infrastructure, it basically means they will become a commodity which will have to compete on price. Sure, one could make the case that AWS (and Azure/GCP) make real money by providing other services on top of their “basic” hosting offers, but no one looks AWS and think “AWS is locking people and charging crazy prices on S3 but they can’t get a compelling alternative”.

If anything, all these “what if scenarios” are almost making me wish that Zuck does pull it off.

Do you treat the people on the same instance as you as “taking your space”? Wouldn’t it better to think of it as shared, which means that it is not really yours or anyone else’s?

The only space that is truly “yours” in the Fediverse is the one concerning your feed and the data you create.

Who is “they”? Your family? School/Work colleagues? People you share interests and that you know in meatspace?