Rottcodd
@Rottcodd@kbin.social
- Comment on Jack Dorsey departs Bluesky board | TechCrunch 6 months ago:
So... aren't these wannabe twitter competitors going about the whole thing bass-ackwards?
I saw an article the other day about the Mastodon board of directors.
It's as if they think the way do do an internet startup is to first appoint a board of directors and hire a raft of executives, then... um... you know... um... do some business... kinda... stuff....
- Comment on FTC fines Razer for every cent made selling bogus “N95 grade” RGB masks 6 months ago:
Nicely clarified.
Yes - the way I said it leaves the possibility that they have to pay at minimum their profit, and no - that should not be the case. They should have to pay at minimum their total revenue.
- Comment on FTC fines Razer for every cent made selling bogus “N95 grade” RGB masks 6 months ago:
This shouldn't be an exception - it should be the rule.
At the very least, companies should be fined every single cent that they made off of something criminal, and really, they should be fined much more than they made.
If they're fined less than they made off of it, it's not even really a fine. It's just the government taking a cut of the action.
- Comment on One Login: Towards a Single Fediverse Identity on ActivityPub 6 months ago:
No, it's not the same.
You're only describing what would happen at the instance level, and skipping over the fact that the whole thing hinges on your identity on each and every instance actually being one and only one identity that would reside in one particular place. It would actually exist on, and be federated from, one particular server somewhere.
What that means, and the part you're leaving out, is that whoever controlled that server would control your access to the fediverse as a whole - not just on one particular instance, which is the reality with instance-specific identities, but on all instances of all services.
The only way to avoid putting control over your access to the fediverse as a whole in the hands of one company would be to maintain your server on your own hardware, and as the article itself notes, most people can't or won't do that. So most people will end up with their identity on all instances of all services under the control of one specific company. Which is very much NOT the case now.
Now, if someone wants to somehow use their control over my fediverse access for some self-serving purpose - either maliciously or simply as a goad with which to extract profit from me - they're necessarily limited to one identity on one instance of one service because that's as high as it goes. They might, for instance, hijack or disable or demand a subscription fee for access to my .world identity, which resides on .world's server. All that would mean to me though is that that one particular identity on that one particular instance would be compromised. I could still access the fediverse, and even access .world, just by coming in through my kbin identity or my lemm.ee identity or my .ml identity or whatever, since all of those are out of their control.
With this scheme, if someone wants to use their control over my fediverse access for some self-serving purpose, they have one specific place to do it - at the one specific server on which my identity is hosted and from which my identity is federated. With one move, they could hijack or disable or restrict extort payment for my access to ALL instances of ALL services, all at once.
Again, that is very much NOT the case today.
- Comment on One Login: Towards a Single Fediverse Identity on ActivityPub 6 months ago:
What you seem to be against is forcing you to have only one login. That does go against the model we are talking about.
And it isn’t what’s being suggested.
Yes - that isn't what's being suggested. And that's entirely irrelevant.
The correct way to measure the threat a proposal poses isn't by what's specifically being proposed, but by what the proposal, if enacted, carries with it - what it necessitates, implies or even just allows.
As I mentioned before, and this seems to me to be the biggest threat, unless people host their identities on their own hardware, that information is going to be on someone else's hardware. And that's not going to be a charity - it's going to be a business, that's going to profit off of it somehow. If this proposal goes through and is relatively widely adopted, there will one day be an industry leader in the identity-hosting business, and that company will have leverage over the fediverse as a whole. And at that point it would be easy enough for them to, for instance, strike a deal with the biggest instances so that the instances, in the name of security or convenience or whatever might suffice, only accept registrations through that particular service.
I'm not saying that that will happen - only that it could. And that's enough, in my estimation, to make it a bad idea, because if the history of the internet has shown us anything, it's that if there's a way for someone to control something and profit off of it, someone will control it and profit off of it, and the original proposal that made that possible doesn't mean a damned thing.
- Comment on One Login: Towards a Single Fediverse Identity on ActivityPub 6 months ago:
Nothing about this idea implies centralization.
It's a single identity that would be used to log in to all relevant sites. How is that not "centralized?"
There is no reason identity has to be tied to the platform using the identity
The reason I prefer that is that then that identity is specific and limited - it's not me on all sites, but just me on that site. Me on another site is an entirely separate identity.
...and no reason why there needs to be a central identity store.
But with this, there is, for all intents and purposes, a central identity "store." That's how it would work - I provide whatever ID is used as a trigger and then the site would access "my" "store." And presumably that would be an ongoing process, since another of the things that's being floated is the ability to essentially federate all of my content across instances.
And all of that is going to have to be hosted somewhere, and if I don't use my own hardware, then it's going to be hosted on someone else's hardware, and that means that they - not I - ultimately have control over it. Sure, they can promise that I maintain full control, but that can, as has happened far too many times in the history of the internet, just be a lie.
Granted that that's the case currently too, again, it's decentralized. Each individual instance just has control over my identity on that instance - not over my identity fediverse-wide.
In fact, right now my identity IS centralized to lemmy.world and I have no control over that.
Only your lemmy.world identity, which isn't you.
Is that the part I'm missing? I still don't understand what the supposed problem is in the first place. Is it that you feel that your lemmy.world identity is in fact "you?" Like that particular online identity is identical to your actual real world self, so not being able to use one and only one identity throughout the fediverse is existentially unsettling?
I'm still trying, and failing, to understand how this is a supposed problem in the first place.
Anyway, only your lemmy.world identity is (by a stretch of the term) "centralized," and only to lemmy.world, and I guess to whoever it federates with. But that's not you - that's just one internet handle, for one site.
And the worst that can happen is that lemmy.world does something shady, in which case you can just create another identity at another site. And that last, as I understand it, was always the central point of decentralization - to make it so that harm that might be done was limited to only the one instance on which it was done, and couldn't permanently harm the broader fediverse or an individual's access to it.
Having one central identity though means that any harm done to or through that identity is done throughout the fediverse, and to the affected individual on all instances. That seems like a recipe for trouble, and seems to be directly contrary to the ideal of decentralization.
Your solution to create as many identities as you want is great for avoiding having one identity, but not an example of decentralized identity.
How is it not? My identity on the fediverse is spread around multiple accounts on multiple instances. That's about as "decentralized" as it gets.
Yes - each identity is tied to a specific instance, so can be said to be "central" to that instance, but again, all that means is that that one instance can potentially cause me harm on that one instance. The rest of my identities are out of their control.
So with this single identity scheme, imagine that it's somehow compromised or violated or held for ransome or whatever. That affects every single individual account I have throughout the fediverse. While with the way I currently do things, all it could ever do is affect the one account I have on one instance, and dealing with it would be just as easy as avoiding or closing that account. All the rest of my accounts, and my fediverse access broadly, would remain entirely unaffected.
How is that not the better alternative, and much more to the point, more in keeping with the ideal of decentralization?
- Comment on One Login: Towards a Single Fediverse Identity on ActivityPub 6 months ago:
"If you're thinking of taking the tribe cross-country, this is the automobile you should be using - the Wagonqueen Family Truckster!"
- Comment on One Login: Towards a Single Fediverse Identity on ActivityPub 6 months ago:
Just imagine you go to a fediverse site, click “log in with ActivityPod”
It makes me nauseous just thinking about it.
That's where the whole thing went wrong. When things started getting centralized, the internet started turning into a walled, commodified, ad-infested, bot-generated shithole controlled by a handful of loathsome megacorporations.
That's exactly the sort of shit I want to get away from, and I rhought that getting away from that sort of shit was the exact point of ActivityPub.
Privacy would also increase because you could control every aspect of you identity
I don't think that's true.
I see no possible way that a centralized identity can be more private that an array of separate ones. And rather obviously, with a centralized identity, you don't control every aspect of it, because it's an established fact - when you go to a new site and sign up with that identity, it is exactly and only what it's already been established to be, and it's immediately tied in with all the others that use the same identity.
On the other hand, when I go to a new site and create a new identity from scratch - one that only exists on that site - I actually do control every aspect of my identity. It's whatever I make it right there on the spot, and it shares exactly as much or as little detail with my other identities as I want it to.
Granted that I'm very cynical, I just can't escape the feeling that all of this is cover for the real goal, which is simply to centralize the fediverse, so that a new group of opportunists can squat on top of another piece of the internet and extract rent from ir. We're being told that this "problem" needs to be "solved" because "solving" it will, so they hope, create the next Google.
- Comment on One Login: Towards a Single Fediverse Identity on ActivityPub 6 months ago:
Serious question - why is this considered a problem? I don't get it.
It doesn't seem to be for convenience, since you'd still have to sign up for and sign in to different sites separately (which is obviously unavoidable - the alternative would be centralization, which is exactly what we're trying to get away from).
Is it an ego thing? So that people can conveniently establish a sort of identity brand in the fediverse? Is it all about accomodating would-be influencers?
Or is it some sort of psychological thing? Like people just feel uncomfortable with separate identities spread around the fediverse? Like they're somehow disjointed and fragile?
I can't make sense of it. I have easily a dozen accounts spread around the fediverse, mostly but not all under the same name, and I have no issue with that. I don't see a problem that needs to be solved. To the contrary, if anything, I'm wary of the idea of consolidating them - that just feels too much like moving back to centralization, just by a different scheme.
I just don't get it.
- Comment on Google Pulls the Plug: The End of Third-Party Cookies and What it Means | TWiT.TV 9 months ago:
Would you refuse to visit websites that force registration even if the account is free?
I already generally do.
What’s all the fuss about, you don’t care?
I honestly don't much care, but that's because western civilization is circling the drain, warped and undermined at every turn by wealthy and powerful psychopaths, and it's just not worth it to care, since there's absolutely nothing I can do to stop them
Is advertising a necessary evil in fair trade for content?
Some sort of revenue stream is potentially necessary, but that's the extent of it. Advertising is just one revenue stream, and even if we limit the choices to that, there are still many different ways it could be implemented.
The specific forms of advertising to which we're subjected on the internet are very much not necessary. And they don't exist as they do because the costs of serving content require that much revenue - they exist as they do to pay for corporate bloat - ludicrously expensive real estate and facilities and grotesquely inflated salaries for mostly useless executive shitheads.
Would this limit your visiting of websites to only a narrow few you are willing to trade personal details for?
Again, that's what I already do, so it would just add more sites to those I won't visit.
Is this a bad thing for the internet experience as whole, or just another progression of technology?
At this point, the two are almost always one and the same. Internet technology is primarily harnessed to the goal of maximizing income for the well-positioned few, and all other considerations are secondary.
Is this no different from using any other technology platform that’s free (If it’s free, you’re the product)?
This is cynically amusing on Lemmy.
Should website owners just accept a lower revenue model and adapt their business, rather than seeking higher / unfair revenues from privacy invasive practices of the past?
Of course they should, but they won't, because they're psychopaths. They'll never give up any of their grotesque and destructive privilege, even if that means that they ultimately destroy the host on which they're parasites.
- Comment on **Simplest solution for fragmented communities:** Redirect comments to one post (by asking or with new functionality) 1 year ago:
I prefer a much simpler solution: the threadiverse remains decentralized, with all that that entails, and all of the people who can't cope with that leave.
- Comment on What were some movies you had to look up explanations of after watching? 1 year ago:
I was going to say this, but I figured I could just scroll until I found where someone else inevitably said it.
By the end, I was just letting the drama wash over me and not even trying to sort out which version of who was doing what in which timeline.
And honestly, I suspect that that's the best way to appreciate it anyway.
- Comment on Never start vaping, says 12-year-old girl with lung damage 1 year ago:
I'm always curious - what is it that leads you to believe that you should be able to decide what other people may or may not do with their own bodies?
I've never been able to wrap my head around that whole idea. There's just no angle on it that makes sense to me.
If I presume that people do have the right to decide what other people can do with their own bodies, then we end up with self-defeating chaos, since different people have entirely different, conflicting and even contradictory, views on that.
But if I decide that they don't have that right, then... they don't have that right.
I don't see a chain of logic that can possibly lead to the conclusion that anyone does have that right, but it seems I can't turn around without running into yet another person, like you here, who blithely presumes that they do.
So really - how does that work? Inside your own mind, what's the reasoning that leads to the conclusion that you, rather than the actual people who actually inhabit the other bodies around you, should be empowered to decide what they may or may not do with their own bodies?
I just can't make sense of it.
- Comment on Never start vaping, says 12-year-old girl with lung damage 1 year ago:
So seriously - who's peddling this anti-vaping propaganda and what's their goal?
Vaping is easily the most effective way to stop smoking that's ever existed. Certainly we don't want kids to start doing it, and kids are the basis for much of the propaganda, but it's never just restricted to trying to make it so kids don't start. All of the propaganda efforts are directed toward stamping out vaping entirely, and that means that millions of people whose lives could literally be saved by switching from smoking to vaping will be denied that opportunity.
Why? Whose interests are served by denying adult smokers access to the most effective smoking cessation product ever?
- Comment on The Minecraft wiki has been moved from Fandom to Minecraft.wiki 1 year ago:
Good.
It's reached the point (or had a couple of years ago, which was the last time I went to a wiki hosted there) that it's virtually impossible to even read an entry, since there are so many ads that the actual text of the article spends more time off the screen than on it.
- Comment on I'm so glad I waited nearly 3 years to play Cyberpunk 2077, but I dread the fact that this is our new normal 1 year ago:
That's not a new thing though.
I first learned the wisdom of waiting until after the bulk of the bug-squashing was done before expecting to play a reasonably stable game with Oblivion, 17 years ago.
Granted that Cyberpunk 2077 was a particularly egregious example of the problem, but still...
- Comment on I hate how everything requires you to download a shitty proprietary data harvesting app nowadays when everything can be done just fine without an app. 1 year ago:
The thing I really can't understand, and a likely consequence of the ubiquity of apps, is all of the people who can't seem to function without them.
Like when the Reddit exodus to the threadiverse happened, people started immediately crying for Lemmy apps. And it doesn't seem to matter that much how bare-bones or unstable one might be - the important thing is that it's an app. That's all that seems to matter to them.
It's as if they aren't even aware of the fact that these are all websites, so they all work in a browser - as if to them, an app is a necessity and they can't figure out how to accomplish anything otherwise.
- Comment on Announcing Microsoft Copilot, your everyday AI companion - The Official Microsoft Blog 1 year ago:
It just struck me that artificial intelligence is an accurate term after all, just in a different sense than the classic idea of a non-living consciousness.
It's "artificial intelligence" in that it's a substitute for real intelligence.
- Comment on Bill Maher Bashes ‘Barbie’ as a “Preachy, Man-Hating Zombie Lie” 1 year ago:
...while insisting "I'm not the one who's out of step."
That's the funniest thing I've read all day.
- Comment on Child Safety on Federated Social Media 1 year ago:
This isn't science - it's propaganda.
- Comment on Do you guys think local only communities should be a thing? 1 year ago:
Yes - in the broadest, simply practical sense, there are always shoulds and should nots.
But just as you knew that I wasn't simply asking for a clarification regarding the makeup of that "we," I know that you don't actually believe that that broadest sense of the terms "should" and "should not" is the one I intended when I used them.
- Comment on Do you guys think local only communities should be a thing? 1 year ago:
What authority does "the fediverse community at large" possess?
- Comment on Would something like /r/2westerneurope4u be allowed here? 1 year ago:
There's no central authority here who can allow or prohibit anything.
The highest authorities are the owners of the individual instances, so if any of them choose to allow it (which I'm sure some would) then they will.
- Comment on Do you guys think local only communities should be a thing? 1 year ago:
can we defederate? absolutely… should we defederate? definitely undecided
Who's this "we" you're referring to?
- Comment on Do you guys think local only communities should be a thing? 1 year ago:
In the fediverse, ther is no should or should not. There's only can or cannot.
- Comment on The Fediverse is Not The Future of The Internet. 1 year ago:
Ah. Yes - I agree entirely.
- Comment on The Fediverse is Not The Future of The Internet. 1 year ago:
I sure as hell hope it doesn't become mainstream - I don't think there's ever been a single thing that's benefitted over the long-term from mainstream popularity.
I understand that you don't want to be seen as gatekeeping, but I don't share that aversion. I overtly want the fediverse to remain somewhat confusing and opaque, and specifically do that dumb and/or impatient ans/or lazy people will stay away. I think that every single person who gets confused and frustrated here and goes back to Reddit or Twitter is a net gain for the fediverse.