• 44 Posts
Joined 3M ago
Cake day: Jan 20, 2021


In Germany, many are unhappy about the vaccination progress and pressure politicians to do something. In my opinion, they sound like sports fans where everyone knows it better then the pros.

If politicians get pressured into emergency activities, they might actually slow down the pharma companies.

The classic counter-argument is The ecosystem is moving by Moxie: Standardization slows down innovation.

Maybe it is simply too early to standardize on a messenger protocol. XMPP is a proper standard but Big Tech out-innovates it by providing additional features. For example, WhatsApp rolled out voice calls before an XMPP extension was available, if I remember correctly.

In general, I believe federation to be the ultimate sweet spot. P2P is too hard for most people but currently necessary in some cases like whistleblowing. Centralized services provide the best innovation speed. If run as a non-profit it is also ok (e.g. Signal) but ultimately the weak spot is that they are subject to a single nation and especially the US is not the best here with its shadow courts. Another option is to turn them into a government service. That would kill the innovation but something like Twitter does not need no innovate much anymore in my opinion.

In theory, lemmy should be able to federate with it. In practice?

This is what i remember as well. Free SMS and then free calls was the pitch.

I don’t think the media is the issue here. Do we have any evidence that the percentage of lies and fake news is higher with social media than 100 years ago? Media is just faster and available to everybody now.

I see the problem in incentives: Ads are the big source of income for social media. Thus they are incentivized towards controversy.

I have no solution. As long as people believe that ads don’t affect them that muchpersonally, why not tolerate them?

While I like the fediverse, I don’t buy most of these reasons.

  1. “It’s decentralized.” This is no reason in itself. That description rather says “It’s resilient.” Well, the big social websites have a pretty good uptime as well, so not a good reason.

  2. “It can’t be censored.” The description uses a warped definition of censorship. Originally, it is only about censoring by the government. Banning Trump is actually the reverse and no censoring. The argument is correct that in the fediverse you can switch to another equal instance. Switching from Twitter to Instagram is not equal.

  3. “Free as in freedom”. The description is actually more about public auditing than freedom. This is not a good argument because an admin in the fediverse can patch his instance without anybody noticing. The federation still lowers the impact though.

  4. “It respects your privacy”. Same issue. An admin can patch their instance and no public audit defends against that. The federation still lowers the impact."

  5. “It’s all about the community” Maybe. Maybe the crazy people have just not yet discovered the fediverse in significant numbers. An eternal september could occur. Federation might help. It might not.

  6. “There’s an instance for everyone” Well, there is also a subreddit for everyone and a twitter hashtag and …

Conclusion: 1, 2 and 6 are no reason to me. 3 and 4 are reasons but not strong ones. For 5 there is not enough data yet.

One argument would be that it isn’t “terrorism” because it is based on overwhelming military force instead of terror. If Iraq yields to the US, it is a rational decision. Those bombers send a message to the government. If the US yields to ISIS, it is an irrational decision. The message is directed to the citizens.