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 :)

  • AidsKitty@lemmy.worldEnglish
    0·
    2 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.

  • Victor@lemmy.worldEnglish
    0·
    2 months ago

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

    • badmin@lemm.eeEnglish
      0·
      2 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·
        2 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·
      2 months ago

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

  • lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.comEnglish
    0·
    2 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.

    • mke@programming.devEnglish
      0·
      2 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·
        2 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·
        2 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.

        • Ghostbanjo1949@lemmy.mengsk.orgEnglish
          0·
          2 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.

        • mke@programming.devEnglish
          0·
          2 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·
            2 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·
              2 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·
                2 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.

      • MortUS@lemmy.worldEnglish
        0·
        2 months ago

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

    • qaz@lemmy.worldEnglish
      0·
      2 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 that relevant?
      NSFW is literally just 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·
        2 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.

  • GaMEChld@lemmy.worldEnglish
    0·
    2 months ago

    Can anyone explain Bluesky vs Mastodon as Twitter alternatives, asking as someone who never really used Twitter much anyway?

    • Otter@lemmy.caOPEnglish
      0·
      2 months ago

      On the surface, both of them look very similar in format. They also both advertise themselves as decentralized and different from traditional social media, arguing that they won’t face the same problems old social media did.

      Mastodon uses ActivityPub, which is the widely used standard that most other fediverse platforms use. Mastodon is properly decentralized, where all the servers can interact and operate independently.

      BlueSky made their own protocol that they control, citing that ActivityPub wasn’t enough for what they wanted to do, and in some ways that’s true. However with their structure, a central relay is needed in order for different instances to interact and so people argue that it isn’t truly decentralized. Right now BlueSky is either the only instance, or basically the only instance.

      BlueSky is also a VC backed company while Mastodon is now under a nonprofit. BlueSky has its roots in crypto tech. There is more technical discussion on if it’s even possible to have a decentralized BlueSky and if it’s all just talk while they gather users.

      My personal opinion is that I really hope bluesky does what they’re promising, but I’m not expecting them to be any different than Twitter once they get a critical mass of users and the investors demand profits / infinite growth.

      • commander@lemmings.worldEnglish
        0·
        2 months ago

        BlueSky made their own protocol that they control, citing that ActivityPub wasn’t enough for what they wanted to do

        Sounds like bullshit for useful idiots that don’t know what they’re talking about.

      • A Wild Mimic appears!@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
        0·
        2 months ago

        from what i understand, a decentralized bluesky is nothing for an enduser at all.

        TL;DR: the cost for an enduser to run a bluesky instance will soon be prohibitive because of the amount of storage needed owed to its shared heap architecture. but what it does is to provide a “credible exit” - if users lose trust or the company shutters, there’s nothing in the way of another organisation picking up the mantle and continue from there on.

      • lepinkainen@lemmy.worldEnglish
        0·
        2 months ago

        For me the advantage of Bluesky is that I can own my identity. I can reserve myusername@mydomain.tld and use that, without having to run my own instance.

        With Mastodon I’d have to put up a full-ass server instance and worry about federation etc just to have my “own” identity instead of myusername@mastodon.social or something

      • PieMePlenty@lemmy.worldEnglish
        0·
        2 months ago

        Bluesky is what happens when someone with a corporate mindset wants to make something new and good. Mastodon happens when hobbyists get together and make something. Ive heard BlueSky has a board of people in charge to make sure it doesn’t end up like twitter. Exactly what one would expect a company to do. Make sure something doesnt go wrong? Put a few people in charge. Mastodon just has the whole community. I may be wrong here as I dont use either. Right now Im just wondering what will happen when BlueSkys provider comes knocking with the hosting bill. As mass social media migrations are rare, its just a shame people are leaving twitter for another big tech site instead of something more community grown.

    • commander@lemmings.worldEnglish
      0·
      2 months ago

      There’s a viral marketing campaign going on right now to herd the twitter sheep to the next rich-person’s platform. That’s why we keep seeing useful idiots say “bluesky” instead of “Mastodon.”

  • shoulderoforion@fedia.io
    0·
    2 months ago

    I’ve been off Twitter for over almost two years now, on to Federated Mastodon and Mbin, and while I’ve often spoke against BlueSky, having been founded by Jack, after Jack let Twitter become infested with Nazis for engagement, then sold it to Elon Musk who he knew was going to kill it, when the world started to come to an end two weeks ago, I needed to be plugged in, so signed up for a BlueSky account. There’s simply not enough communication happening on Mastodon, not enough people, not discussing the things I’m interested in.

    The Fediverse is also a sewer of both overt and covert Antisemitism, where any pro Jewish or pro Israel content is mysteriously “moderated” by antisemites under the guise of political progressivism, which makes it so much less attractive.

    So I swallowed my hatred of Jack, and have been “skeeting” on BlueSky just as I did Twitter for all those years, blocking out the Jew hate there (it is legion), and realizing in the end, that’s more important to me, connection to live events and discussion as they’re happening to get the best collective overview of any given event

      • jol@discuss.tchncs.deEnglish
        0·
        2 months ago

        Yup. I’m always wary of people lumping anti zionism, anti Israel government, and anti semitism all in the same bag.

    • palordrolap@fedia.io
      0·
      2 months ago

      The Fediverse is also a sewer of both overt and covert Antisemitism

      Is this a problem unique to the Fediverse, or is this a case that it’s more rampant here? Or does it only seem like it?

      My feeds are fairly well curated, or perhaps you might say “blinkered”, so I don’t see a lot of it. Or maybe I don’t see what’s right in front of me, which is why I ask, since you definitely see it better than I can.

      (This is not an attempt at a bad faith argument; I’m firmly anti-anti-Semitism, and I’m not saying it’s not there. Frankly, I’d be surprised if there wasn’t any. Anywhere there’s people, their prejudices generally follow.)

      • shoulderoforion@fedia.io
        0·
        2 months ago

        “Lemmy” seems to have be started, and disseminated, by the Hard European Tankie Left, who Administer and Moderate most of it’s instances, and what seems to inform the ongoing moderation of any Pro Israel or Pro Jewish voice that has the temerity to defend itself. Lemmy Kilmister owned the largest personal collection of Nazi memorabilia in the world for years up until his death, and just like every other monster you’ve ever heard of who made that particular obsession the centerpiece of their interest, it probably should have factored in when naming a social media 'verse after. I fully expect all my comments on this to be mysteriously “moderated” as well.

        • OpenStars@piefed.socialEnglish
          0·
          2 months ago

          It’s been 3 hours and your comment is still here…

          “Moderate” no, “Influence” yes. I see what you seemed to be trying to say: the Lemmy codebase is fairly authoritian e.g. lacks any way to contact a mod to find out why something was removed, even going so far as to obscure the name of the account that did it, simply saying “mod”.

          So them being the ones who provide the codebase definitely “influences” us here, but on the other hand they provide the code for free, and anyone at all could make a fork off from it, and administer their own instance however they see fit. Or, as K/Mbin, PieFed, and Sublinks have all done, make their own Reddit replacement Threadiverse software entirely from scratch.

          See e.g. !fediverselore@lemmy.ca (here’s a start to a post) that proves that people on the Fediverse are allowed to criticize the main Lemmy developers, while still using Lemmy software.

          On a personal note I will add: we can respect certain aspects of those people, even as we criticize other aspects, just as we do the same internally inside of our very selves.

        • Baron Von J@lemmy.worldEnglish
          0·
          2 months ago

          Hard European Tankie Left, who Administer and Moderate most of it’s instances

          Weapons grade balognium. There’s ml and Lemmygrad, sure, but that’s not “most” instances by a long shot.

        • OmarDontScare@lemmy.worldEnglish
          0·
          2 months ago

          If BlueSky is full of Jew hate, “it’s legion”, but you’re still using it over Mastodon and Mbin, doesn’t that contradict the idea that antisemitism makes a platform unattractive? If it were your main issue, wouldn’t both be equally bad? Seems like the deciding factor is engagement for you personally, not what moderation happens or doesn’t happen.

          If antisemitism were the real deal-breaker, you wouldn’t be on BlueSky either.

    • NOT_RICK@lemmy.worldEnglish
      0·
      2 months ago

      Having seen many of your comments across lemmy, I feel like you equate a lot of criticism of the state of Israel’s policies and actions with antisemitism. I acknowledge people who hate Jews exist and are definitely on the internet, but I find knee jerk accusations of antisemitism to be intellectually lazy.

      • subignition@fedia.io
        0·
        2 months ago

        seriously - too many people see criticism of Israel’s government and read it as condemnation of all Jews. As if it’s the case that that government represents all Jewish people worldwide (or even all Jewish people in Israel…!)

        It’s like people are thinking that wanting Israel to stop its genocide also means there should be another genocide targeting Jews?? Nuance beyond that sort of black-and-white polarized viewpoint seems to be increasingly dead.

        • IrateAnteater@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
          0·
          2 months ago

          The lack of nuance when discussing that conflict is one of the biggest issues I have. So many people seem to see it as “The Israeli genocide is bad, therefore Hamas is good”. In reality, you have shitty people with power fighting shitty people without power, and civilians getting shafted by both.

    • fxomt@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
      0·
      2 months ago

      Oh come on, it’s not like you’re any better yourself. I’ve seen your comments around lemmy, and most were racist towards arabs.

      what genocide? arabs attack, rape, and murder, then esconce the terrorists directly in and between civilian populations for the sole reason so that when israel responds the body count can be escalated and used as public relations. genocide. shame on you.

      I don’t recall doing any of that.

      Anti zionism =/= anti semitism.

    • Fitik@fedia.io
      0·
      2 months ago

      I’m Jewish myself and I completely agree with you… Sadly it exists on a pretty much every social media, but BlueSky has a unique feature called sharable block lists/mute lists, I believe they call it “stacked moderation”, I’ve subscribed to a few of those and it has blocked 90% of antisemites/terrorism sympathisers, I kinda wish some Fedi platform would have a similar feature as well

    • Baron Von J@lemmy.worldEnglish
      0·
      2 months ago

      Jack isn’t involved with BlueSky anymore. He left the board when they told him to fuck off with his push to get rid of moderation.

      I’ve got nothing to add to the other replies on your mischaracterization of antio-Zionist as anti-Semitism.

  • finitebanjo@lemmy.worldEnglish
    0·
    2 months ago

    I feel like the DNC are being pushed into a blindspot for the general public.

    All Bernie has done is go around to speak at different events, and he is far from the only politician to do so.

    • commander@lemmings.worldEnglish
      0·
      2 months ago

      It’s what the DNC wants. They want to only be seen as the “lesser evil” to people like trump.

      They genuinely have no interest in helping the working class, because they’re not a part of it.

      • finitebanjo@lemmy.worldEnglish
        0·
        2 months ago

        Socialized healthcare, removing money from politics, and taxing the rich is not “the lesser evil” it’s fucking good. It’s blatantly a force of great good that we keep snubbing and blaming for no reason at all.

        What we should be doing is giving them majorities and supermajorities and praising them for the great work they do.

        • commander@lemmings.worldEnglish
          0·
          2 months ago

          They don’t care about doing any of that, though. They only make promises to get elected and reneg on everything once in office.

          Did any of that happen while Biden was in office? Didn’t think so. It’s because he’s a stooge propped up by the ruling class to make people like you think he has your interests at hand. He doesn’t. Establishment democrats do not want to raise taxes on the wealthy. That’s a progressive agenda.

              • finitebanjo@lemmy.worldEnglish
                0·
                2 months ago

                In 1995 until 2002 they attempted to ban large campaign contributions and SUCCEEDED until it was struck down in 2010 by a conservative split SCOTUS decision 5-4 in Citizens United

                In 2013 they used the caucusing IND supermajority to vote for public option healthcare coverage and it lost by 1 vote (the IND betrayed us) so instead we got Medicaid Expansion which combined with Childrens Health Insurance Program payed for the medical costs of 79 Million Americans currently.

                The previous Tax Plan was written and passed by the GOP after 2016 elections, and it expires THIS YEAR meaning the GOP get to write the next tax plan, too. Can you guess what Kamala Harris’ tax plan was? It was to lower taxes for earners below 400k, tax unrealized gains for the rich, raise taxes for the wealthy in general.

                • commander@lemmings.worldEnglish
                  0·
                  2 months ago

                  If democrats really wanted to reduce the disparity in wealth, why would they avoid nominating Bernie twice?

                  It was to lower taxes for earners below 400k, tax unrealized gains for the extremely rich, raise taxes for the wealthy in general.

                  I’ve seen this one before! The only part that “gets through” are the tax cuts for those making >$100k per year!

                  This is why establishment democrats don’t want people like Bernie. They’re part of the problem and want to keep profiting off of it.