- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
The linked post shows how most non-tech people’s understanding of email is very very different from most of the people here.
The linked post shows how most non-tech people’s understanding of email is very very different from most of the people here.
I’m really disappointed with Lemmy’s idea of federation: all it is is a bunch of servers mirroring one another, but the user accounts are server-bound. No jumping instance and taking your identity seamlessly with you.
This isn’t really Lemmy’s idea of federation, it’s just ActivityPub, the underlying protocol. Having a mechanism for jumping servers is unfortunately quite complicated and it isn’t clear how it should be done or if it is even possible.
Lemmy does allow you to export and import your settings though, so you can kinda do it but you lose your history.
AFAIK the Nostr protocsal sorta let’s you hop around, but it’s full to the brimwith cryptobros, and I’m still not sure how moderation works there.
Yea moderation becomes a big problem once you can’t actually block people. I don’t like that Nostr describes itself as censorship resistent or even censorship free, that’s not a good quality.
…
I’m not very familiar with Nostr, but knowing other distributed protocols, you can just hide messages from selected users in client.
Also, wtf did I read?
Censorship-free implies that moderation is impossible. If you don’t have moderation, your social media will turn into a Nazi bar.
That’s not good enough. First of all, users don’t want to have to block people before having a good experience. Users don’t want to deal with moderation themselves, but they also don’t want mean people, harassment and nazis. It’s not easy to recruit moderators for online forums, not a lot of people want to deal with that stuff.
But secondly, client-level blocking is not effective. It does not stop those bad users from continuing their bad behavior. In the case of Lemmy, it also doesn’t stop their votes from still affecting your feed.
So yes, censorship-free platforms are not good because censorship-free means moderation-free, and users don’t want that.
Worse, it will immediately devolve into a CP haven. The dark web is dark for a reason.
Yeah. The reason is Google doesn’t care about them.
In general conversation in distributed protocols is opt-in, not opt-out. If you see something you don’t like in Briar/Tox/Jami, then it is only because you actively seek it.
Okay, but that is not how the fediverse/Lemmy works at all and I don’t think Nostr works that way either. You can easily see content that you did not explicity ask for (i.e. comments/posts from any user) and I don’t think Nostr is different in this aspect (though I could be wrong).
I think you (and the Nostr people as well) are just muddling terms here. Censorship is about an external 3rd party (usually the Government) preventing you from seeing things you are potentially interested in, not (as in the case of Lemmy) your service provider and their trusted moderators helping you curate your social media experience. If you are unhappy with the moderation you can easily switch to another instance and use other communities.
I mean I don’t disagree, but that’s clearly not what Nostr means when they say censorship resistent, cause by that logic, Gmail and Facebook are as censorship resistent as Nostr is.
I don’t think there really is a great difference either. Censorship and moderation are just two perspectives on the same thing. One has bad connotations, the other generally good connotations.
I disagree, and Gmail and Facebook do engage in censorship by hiding stuff the advertisers that pay for it don’t want you to see or be themselves associated with. That’s not even close to what moderation is and confusing the two things as “just two perspectives” is not helpful at all, as you end up justifying censorship through that.
Why do CryptoBros live rent-free in your head ? One of Lemmy’s donation methods links to a Cryptocurrency wallet So are you gonna leave Lemmy ?
They’re annoying yes, but can be ignored
ActivityPub spec allows content-addressed IDs, just nobody implemented them and now it’s too late.
https://gitlab.com/spritely/golem/blob/master/README.org
The problem as I understand it is basically that user IDs in ActivityPub are intrinsically tied to the domain on which the user registered, so you can’t really move a user from one domain to another.
It’s not true, all ActivityPub IDs are URIs
Yes exactly - those URLs contain the domain name, so you can’t change servers for a user as their ID is tied to the domain.
They can be URNs (like magnet:), as shown above.
Well no they can’t, because that’s not part of ActivityPub. In fact ActivityPub mandates HTTP URLs. Of course, any extension can choose to change that, but since nobody is actually supporting magnet links, it’s not relevant.
There once was a discussion going on to implement DIDs in ActivityPub.
Unfortunately you can’t just change the ID format as it would require a breaking change to the protocol.
pretty much. That’s why the discussion is still on draft.
This is exactly like email though.
You have a gmail account that is tied to google. You have to login to gmail to access your email but you can email anyone in the world. Some people use different providers so they have different email addresses.
If you want to change providers there is no easy way to do it. You can use imapsync or export to pst and import to new provider and so on, or maybe your new provider gives you tools for importing mail from your old mailbox but it’s not a feature of email protocol(s) to do this.