Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)P
Posts
127
Comments
432
Joined
2 yr. ago

  • you are not engaging with the argument, just stating ideals

    Correct. I've engaged in the past with people who are convinced Dansup is committing some kind of horrible sins. I examined the arguments in detail and decided they were bullshit.

    I don't really feel like rehashing the arguments again, but you can read if you want to see them:

    https://ponder.cat/post/1151008/1352919

    https://ponder.cat/post/2151188

    I actually wanted to find some more of the more transparently bullshit ones, but they had been removed by mods because they were transparently bullshit. Like I said, I've seen enough criticisms and had them turn out to be bullshit to reach my limit, there was one earlier today that I looked into a decent amount of detail, too.

  • Periodic reminder that shitting on someone who's making free software and giving it away is an entitled, counterproductive, selfish thing to do.

    I have no interest in using Pixelfed or Loops, it's just not my thing. But the idea of criticizing the person who's making them because of a variety of made-up reasons is a bunch of crap.

    Also, fedi developers should get paid. They're doing work. They should get paid. The idea that someone who's optimizing the video pipeline for the next ad network can make $150k a year and it's a problem if Dansup fills up his fundraiser because people love the stuff he's already done is, also, a bunch of crap.

  • Give it a rest. A fork of Mastodon created a new abstraction for "private posts" and started sending to instances some posts that were marked in a new way as "private," and now they're trying to blame Pixelfed for not adopting their homemade standard for what posts their servers are sending out to everyone that they're not supposed to show, and what ones they are supposed to show. And, Pixelfed fixed it once they became aware of the issue.

    It's fixed in 1.12.5. Why is this not titled "Mastodon instances claim to their users to offer 'private' posts but send them out exactly like normal posts, get surprised when software that hasn't magically adopted their new standard is showing them to people"?

  • Yeah. One of the very few design feature of AP that I like is that actors have their very own keys, which means that in theory you could have the keys stay in the browser unlocked by a passphrase or something, and make it so no one could forge a message by a user except that user.

    It would be pretty easy to extend that, so that Lemmy DMs get encrypted with the key of the actor meant to receive them, private posts get multi-encrypted with the public keys of any approved followers, et cetera. But yeah it seems like the amount of attention this stuff gets is very minimal.

  • I would consider it similar to email, should we abandon it (yes, but not because of this) just because a malicious email server started publishing all the emails it recieved? AP is just email but social media.

    Yes, and people implemented PGP for encrypted email, and also made SMTP over TLS the standard, so that they wouldn't have to demand that every router and every SMTP server everywhere on the internet agree not to republish or store secret information that was passing through it, because it started to become understood that email was in no way private.

    A proper standard for private posts would be similar. You could have all private posts be encrypted with a rotating key, for example, and have them decrypted by anyone who had the key, on the client side, and stored and transmitted in encrypted form. Being approved to follow the private posts would involve your user being given a copy of the key through some kind of private key exchange. It sounds complex (and it would be, a little), and it would involve moving to the client some of the key management that currently happens on the instance server (and thus undoes some of the actually good design of ActivityPub, by just putting the instance software back in the position of keeping every actor's keys for them and doing all the crypto work on behalf of the users). Anyway, it would be work and involve some redesign. I'm not saying that's what they should have done. I'm saying that's what having private posts as a feature would mean. Anything else is non-private posts that are pretending to be private posts.

  • Yeah, so there's no real way to implement private posts on Mastodon.

    I mean, it is fine if you want to implement sort of "best effort" semi-privacy and make it clear to everyone involved that that's what it is, but for any reasonable definition of "private," the requirement that it not get shown to people outside the list of people allowed to see it needs to be enforced better than this. There will always be server software that doesn't "cooperate." That's just the nature of open distributed systems. If you're making assurances to your users that their posts will be private, you need to be the one enforcing that, not everyone else on the network and the protocol needs to be set up with the ability for that to happen (which ActivityPub is not, which means it's misleading that someone told users that they can have "private" posts via this hack.)

  • private posts are only sent to instances

    Well, obviously they’re sent to some other ones, or else this wouldn’t be an issue.

    This is a design flaw in the protocol. If your instance is going to send your private posts to other people, they’re not private. The authors need to fix your instance software, not demand that every other software in existence needs to “cooperate” and find out whether they’re “private” and not show them to the users if they are.

  • Canadian slur for Irish Catholics, apparently.

    🤷

  • I am clearly just talking nonsense. I actually didn't know that meatballs were called that in the UK, so I guess it's perfectly legit. There actually was a big rift in the Scrabble community, decades ago, about using the British official word list versus the American official word list, and apparently they've more or less standardized on a combined list that includes all the words on both. So anything in British English is completely fair game, which may to be fair explain why some of the words that aren't real friendly in the US are still on there.

  • Pretty sure George Washington invented English, it was right about the time he was teaching the Wampanoag about thanksgiving and the Iroquois about federal democracy.

    😃

    (I am joking don't get all upset. Here, here's Al Murray to soothe the English pride: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_x2ovlPr2IE)

  • I would go further than this: It is absurd to assert that we know they had no contact with each other. Archaeology is full of occasional one-off weird shit from one civilization randomly being found in some other civilization thousands of miles away that it had no business having contact with. And yet, there it is.

    A lot of scientists see the breadth and the rigor of the models that they follow, and they make the understandable but wrong leap into saying “this thing isn’t in my model, so that means it is definitely not true (even though there’s no particular negative evidence), because if it were, it would be in my model.”

    I have no way of being sure, any more than they have any way of being sure in the other direction, but I think the sudden appearance of farming at basically the same time the world over is explained by exactly the explanation that it seems like it would be explained by. All it takes is one.

  • Like I said, using the UK is cheating (I guess I should have specified that). I can take a walk down Butthole Lane, look up the bus schedule from Shitterton to Twatt, and then I can go pick up 6 faggots for £1.60. It's all just part of the nature of the place.

  • Holy shit, my sides.

     
        
    ASPIE
    ASPIES
    
    ...
    
    BUBBA (?)
    
    ...
    
    BULLDIKE
    BULLDIKES
    BULLDYKE
    BULLDYKES
    BUMBOY
    BUMBOYS
    CHINKIE
    CHINKIES
    CHOLO
    CHOLOS
    COCKSUCKER
    COCKSUCKERS
    
    ...
    
    DAGO
    DAGOES
    DAGOS
    DARKEY
    DARKEYS
    DARKIE
    DARKIES
    DARKY
    DIKEY
    DIKIER
    DIKIEST
    DOGAN
    DOGANS
    DYKEY
    DYKIER
    DYKIEST
    FAGGERIES
    FAGGERY
    FAGGIER
    FAGGIEST
    FAGGOTIER
    FAGGOTIEST
    FAGGOTRIES
    FAGGOTRY
    
      

    Okay, on some of these, they have a point lol.

    Also, I got curious and scrolled down to "N", and all I can say is holy holy shit man. I get it. People cherry-picked out some stupid decisions, but it honestly makes a lot of sense now that I can see the list. I also understand why they didn't publish the list...

  • No. It absolutely is not. Historically it did sure, but I challenge you to go to any corner of the English-speaking world and use it in any sentence at all and have any single person hear you and assume that you mean a bundle of sticks.

  • Blgum

  • Yes, but presumably if avoiding that situation was the goal they would have removed "faggot." I can't even really understand what is the reasoning which might have led them to be extremely aggressive about finding weird slurs that very few people use to root out and remove, while leaving the ones that are actual issues alone. In some way, I think the impotence of the final decision set is somehow connected with the performative nature of it all. Maybe? I have no idea.

    Ultimately it seems like they're just trying to fit in with the times as their clueless executives understand them. I think they're a few years behind the times, though, actually. Maybe if they were a little more hip they would be trying to release a "free speech" Scrabble with a bunch of new words added and with "liberal" and "woke" removed, now that the 2010s' brand of stupid performativeness is being replaced with a new type of performativeness that's different and much darker.