It’s brief, around 25:15

https://youtube.com/watch?v=nf7XHR3EVHo

If you’ve been sitting on making a post about your favorite instance, this could be a good opportunity to do so.

Going by our registration applications, a lot of people are learning about the fediverse for the first time and they’re excited about the idea. I’ve really enjoyed reading through them :)

  • Victor@lemmy.worldEnglish
    0·
    3 months ago

    Really hoping legislators in Sweden don’t force Signal to pull its services from the country. 🫣

    • badmin@lemm.eeEnglish
      0·
      3 months ago

      Signal has been questionable for years. The way it’s been pushed hardly, and how Moxie is emeritus, while much more questionable people are in control, doesn’t fill one with confidence, and does ring some alarm bells. The relative proximity to some in the US establishment should be enough to do that. And the way some have been designating anyone who questions Signal as “Russian Propaganda” and immediately deflecting about how Telegram is bad, is even more curious.

      Frankly, I would trust something like Wire more than Signal. And there are other options too.

      Ideally, something with good security/privacy and is fully P2P would become popular. But those apps/networks never make it mainstream, which is unfortunate.

      • Victor@lemmy.worldEnglish
        0·
        3 months ago

        There is a lot in here that I don’t understand.

        1. What’s wrong with Moxie? You mean it’s weird he’s an emeritus and not part of the board?
        2. What’s “much more questionable” about the other people? From the descriptions on that page they all seem like standup people.
        3. Could you explain the “relative proximity to some in the US establishment” bit? That was too vague for me to grasp.
        4. “some have been designating anyone who questions Signal as ‘Russian Propaganda’ and immediately deflecting about how Telegram is bad, is even more curious.” — Who has done this, you mean? And why exactly is it “curious”?

        Honestly, there was nothing at all in there that I understood, due to how vague it all was. I would appreciate it if you or someone could fill me in here, because it’s important to know who’s driving this thing, and if the platform can be trusted. I just want to not go by some vague rumors before I make up my mind.

    • Vinstaal0@feddit.nlEnglish
      0·
      3 months ago

      What legislation would do that? Would they want access to your messages or something?

  • lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.comEnglish
    0·
    3 months ago

    Not friendica, which seems an obvious facebook alternative.

    Also, I think they’re onto something with their fuck it approach that every social media platform would benefit from. The internet was mostly that before. Content moderation primarily serves advertisers, it was never really for the people. Old internet anarchy was chaotic fun.

      • MortUS@lemmy.worldEnglish
        0·
        3 months ago

        Imagine traveling down a liminal space of tubes and the only signs are nondescript TLDs.

    • mke@programming.devEnglish
      0·
      3 months ago

      Content moderation primarily serves advertisers

      I’m lost, here. Do you not think fighting toxicity and hate speech is a valid and important function of moderation that’s just as much or more for the sake of the people as it might be for advertisers?

      • Excrubulent@slrpnk.netEnglish
        0·
        3 months ago

        I think the rise of hate speech on centralised platforms relies very heavily on their centralised moderation and curation via algorithms.

        They have all known for a long time that their algorithms promote hate speech, but they know that curbing that behaviour negatively affects their revenue, so they don’t do it. They chase the fast buck, and they appease advertisers who have a naturally conservative bent, and that means rage bait and conventional values.

        That’s quite apart from when platform owners explicitly support that hate speech and actively suppress left leaning voices.

        I think what we have on decentralised systems where we curate/moderate for ourselves works well because most of that open hate speech is siloed, which I think is the best thing you can do with it.

      • lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.comEnglish
        0·
        3 months ago

        I think that it’s just words & images on a screen that we could easily ignore like people did before, and people are indulging a grandiose conceit by thinking that moderation is that important or serves any greater cause than the interests of moderators. On social media that seems to be to serve the consumers, by which I mean the advertisers & commercial interests who pay for the attention of users. While the old internet approach of ignoring, gawking at the freakshow, or ridiculing/flaming toxic & hateful shit worked fine then resulting in many people disengaging, ragequitting, or going outside to do something better, that’s not great for advertisers protecting their brand & wanting to keep people pliant & unchallenged as they stay engaged in their uncritical filter bubbles & echo chambers.

        With old internet, safety wasn’t an internet nanny, thought police shit, and “stop burning my virgin eyes & ears”. It was an anonymous handle, not revealing personally identifying information (a/s/l?), not falling for scams & giving out payment information (unless you’re into that kinky shit). Glad to see newer social media returning to some of that.

        • mke@programming.devEnglish
          0·
          3 months ago

          Toxicity doesn’t “work fine,” it’s contagious and destructive. For projects, it slows progress. For communities in general, it reinforces bad behavior and pushes out newcomers, leading to more negative spaces, isolation, and stagnation, just off the top of my head. These were issues in older communities just as they are in modern ones.

          I don’t see why we should abandon moderation for your benefit, at the expense of people who care.

          • lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.comEnglish
            0·
            3 months ago

            For projects, it slows progress.

            Your example of toxicity is linux maintainers resisting a newer programming language, not wanting to maintain additional bindings, and being stubborn about it? People decide whether to work & agree with each other, so what’s your definition of toxicity here? How’s moderation supposed to solve that: force people to agree & work together unwillingly? Seems rather authoritarian. People should only put words & images on a screen that someone approves? More authoritarian. And look at those imaginary problems we can solve!

            This goes back to the grandiose conceit I wrote about earlier: some people can’t get over themselves, take these words & images on a screen a bit too seriously, and feel they know better than others the right words & images to put on a screen, because of course they do. The rest of us know it’s just a bunch of self-important crap that doesn’t matter unless we make it matter, and we can ignore it or put our own words & images on a screen or go outside.

            • mke@programming.devEnglish
              0·
              3 months ago

              You streamed together a sequence of misunderstandings, fallacies and self-victimization into an incoherent pile of garbage that fails at actually responding to anything. Got it, got it, you’re god’s bravest warrior, resisting the authoritarianism of people who think others shouldn’t be forced to tolerate your immaturity whenever you act like a cunt. I’ll stop giving you attention now, so sorry.

              • lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.comEnglish
                0·
                3 months ago

                Victimization is all on those like you threatened by naughty words & images who claim we need some great moderator hero to defend us against their toxicity, which apparently includes work-related disagreements.

                people who think others shouldn’t be forced to tolerate your immaturity whenever you act like a cunt

                And they’ll be objective about it, or is anything someone disagrees with instance of immaturity & someone acting like a cunt? Do we need the noble internet police to swoop in and protect us against your words & images? They’re here, yet somehow the world isn’t crumbling.

        • Ghostbanjo1949@lemmy.mengsk.orgEnglish
          0·
          3 months ago

          I wholeheartedly agree, the only censorship should be in the individuals hands and only affects them. Aka blocking other users or content from being displayed on your own account. My moral compass does not need to be everyone’s moral compass.

    • qaz@lemmy.worldEnglish
      0·
      3 months ago

      Lemmy has also taken over advertiser focused moderation patterns. A great example is NSFW. What is NSFW exactly? Not safe for work? Why is only that relevant?
      NSFW is just used to mark advertiser unfriendly content. Why else group nakedness, violence, sexual content, and death in the same category?
      It’s way too vague to be useful, you have no idea if you’re going to see a nipple or a murder.

      Content warnings like on Mastodon are better, but don’t provide a way to reliably filter out categories. I personally think it would be way better to have specific nested tags for certain types of material.

      • commander@lemmings.worldEnglish
        0·
        3 months ago

        Are you new to the internet? NSFW literally means what it says: it’s content that would not be safe for you to be viewing at work.

        Advertising has nothing to do with it, which is why you still get ads on NSFW boards on 4chan; they’re just NSFW ads.

  • AidsKitty@lemmy.worldEnglish
    0·
    3 months ago

    Cool, everybody can build these companies up so that they can launch their IPOs and be controlled by a new board of directors fresh from wall street. It will all be so different.

    • unknown1234_5@kbin.earth
      0·
      3 months ago

      mastodon is already the next twitter, bluesky is just a direct copy of it with nothing keeping it from going the same way. mastodon is open source (can’t be corpoed), federated (can talk to other platforms/instances so being on a small one doesn’t hurt anything), and most importantly, uses a protocol that doesn’t make self-hosting impossible due to storage requirements.

    • dan1101@lemm.eeEnglish
      0·
      3 months ago

      I signed up today. I never liked Twitter but I will give it a try. Steam (PC gaming platform) is a member so that’s a plus for me.

    • commander@lemmings.worldEnglish
      0·
      3 months ago

      Why bluesky instead of mastodon? It’s like saying lemmy.world is going to replace reddit instead of the Lemmy platform.

      Are you just commenting how the people who use something like twitter are eager to be herded like sheep into the next walled garden?

      Are you part of the bluesky viral marketing campaign to make it artificially seem like it’s “already won”?

      • Dojan@lemmy.worldEnglish
        0·
        3 months ago

        I’m wondering this too People are hyped about bluesky but it is the same corpo bullshit that Twitter is. I mean it is literally by the same dude. Why fold?,

        • redacted2@lemmy.worldEnglish
          0·
          3 months ago

          Didnt Dorsey already walk from it and gave the reason that it is headed the same way twitter is. Bluesky is being pushed by capitalists because it is a for profit company just like twitter and facebook.

        • JacksonLamb@lemmy.worldEnglish
          0·
          3 months ago

          Bizarre that you and that other guy thought “will become the next Twitter” was some sort of praise. It’s not.

          • Dojan@lemmy.worldEnglish
            0·
            3 months ago

            I think it’s more bizarre that you think “same corpo bullshit that Twitter is” is some kind of praise.

            • JacksonLamb@lemmy.worldEnglish
              0·
              3 months ago

              If you don’t agree with the person above you, maybe don’t start your comment with

              I’m wondering this too.

              Accusing people of being shills for commenting that bluesky is going to become (shitty) like twitter is out of pocket.

      • Uri@infosec.pubEnglish
        0·
        3 months ago

        When I said bluesky will be the next Twitter did I said Twitter is a good place. Twitter is now bullshit.

      • supersquirrel@sopuli.xyzEnglish
        0·
        3 months ago

        Why bluesky instead of mastodon?

        Because there is only so much oxygen in the room, and corporate ventures like Bluesky seem to come into really exciting DIY community spaces that are creating amazing things and pull the oxygen out of the room while never quite delivering on what they are promising… or seeming to promise… and in the mean time the projects that originally created the innovative energy in the space are lost in the noise.

        I mean… see basically the entire early history of the commercialization of personal computers for endless repetitions of this pattern.

        Remember we are not the customers of corporate social media companies, we are the raw husks they extract value from through surveillance capitalism and ads/paid content.

    • rayyy@lemmy.worldEnglish
      0·
      3 months ago

      Exactly! All a person has to do is to look around - the right buys up all popular media platforms and converts them to propaganda outlets.

  • legolas@fedit.plEnglish
    0·
    3 months ago

    It’s crazy how the wind changed. Does anyone remeber the almost exact same thing 4 years ago, when people on the right side of political spectrum shared alternatives to big tech from their point ov view? GAB.COM, PARLER, BRAVE, DUCKDUCKGO etc

    XD

    • misk@sopuli.xyzEnglish
      0·
      3 months ago

      In both cases it was primarily performative for Americans but this time there will be considerable chunk of Europeans who will be looking to leave big tech for services in non-hostile countries.

      • FundMECFS@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
        0·
        3 months ago

        It’s not explicitly rightwing.

        A couple years ago Musk was recommending Signal.

        It’s just an example of right wing people recommending alternatives.

      • grue@lemmy.worldEnglish
        0·
        3 months ago

        Brave’s business model is a crypto scam wrapped in a protection racket. It man-in-the-middles the site’s ads, replacing them with Brave’s own, then holds the revenue hostage unless the site gives legitimacy to Brave’s crypto by accepting it as payment.

        For comparison, “normal” ad-blocking consists of an end-user exercising his property right to control the operation of his own computer by programming it not to display the ads at all.

        Hopefully you can see how the thing Brave does is very different, and much more ethically fraught.

  • Rhoeri@lemmy.worldEnglish
    0·
    3 months ago

    I’m sure he’s going to be facing lawsuits from Краснов and Wormtongue any day now.