• 20 Posts
  • 37 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: May 2nd, 2023

help-circle




  • consequence of the terminally-online brain rot

    Disagree. Its a consequence of corporations loudly proclaiming their support for groups when it cost nothing (think Black History Month here in the US). Corporations like to use a lot of empty marketing talk about societal issues when they can get away with it and ppl have decided to fight that by pushing companies to actually takes stands. Also, corporations here in the US have much larger voices than individual (and again this is because of the corporations’ own actions), so some ppl see it as a way they can actually have an influence on their govt.


  • But wait, there’s more, we’re standardizing our Groups implementation so other projects can take advantage of our App and Client API.

    So its compatible with lemmy but uses a different API and they want their API to be the standard for the threadiverse? This is why we should be using the C2S, but since we’re not you should just stick with the lemmy api since that’s where the client ecosystem is already at.





  • I suppose this is where the root of our disagreement lies. For me the technical network that links tools is not the fediverse. The fediverse is what is built on top of that network and it is inherently linked with the community

    I wrote a long reply disagreeing with each of your points, but you’re right. This is our disagreement. You’re using the term fediverse to apply to a specific group of ppl/servers that share values with you and I think that’s co-opting the term. The fediverse is more akin to the web (a platform based on technology that allows ppl access to other ppl and information) and it doesn’t make sense to talk about it as a single organization.

    I think trying to change its meaning like this is flawed and leads to issues like we’re having now with Bridgy-Fed. You can’t shout at everyone to use the tech in the way you want, because eventually there will be ppl/orgs that just don’t listen. Instead, I think you should be pushing for existing platforms you’re using (lemmy, mastodon, etc) to give you more control of your own data. There are ways to allow small-fedi users to create the exact type of spaces they want and anybody else to have the wide open fediverse they want, if the various project would implement them.

    I’m happy to continue discussing this with you or leave it here. Either way, thanks for the chat and have a good one.


  • For example, free software, no advertising as a business model, not commercial, not run by big corporations and talking over AP.

    None of those are requirements to be part of the fediverse. The fediverse existed long before ActivityPub was even proposed. Free software, ad free, non commercial, not run by big corporations are all just coincidence because its a grassroots effort. Even now, there’s multiple companies invested in the fediverse: Mozilla, Flipboard, Facebook, Automatic being the most obvious.

    Even if you take those as given, none of those dictate any shared values. Bridgy-fed itself meets all of those requirements but clearly holds differing values. Truth Social, Gab, Spinster, etc are all on the fediverse despite being abhorrent to the majority of the rest of the fediverse.

    I’m in favor of groups maintaining shared values and enforcing policies based on them. But those policies can never apply to an entire network made up of distinct projects, servers, and people all with different ideas about how it should work.


  • the nature and direction of the fediverse

    The fediverse is a decentralized network. It doesn’t have a cohesive nature/direction. It’s made up of servers providing twitter-like experiences, servers providing reddit-like experiences, forums, personal websites, video platforms, etc. You’ll never know all the places your fediverse data has reached because the fediverse doesn’t have hard boundaries so you can’t possible measure it all.

    Which is why I think complaining about other what other software does is pointless. Instead, users should be pushing their own software to adopt more features to allow them to control their experience and data.























  • But have they? I’m not qualified to say. I don’t have any actual data in front of me.

    The question was do video games improve your life. I would argue you are the only person who can answer that question. This isn’t really a scientific question because its purely subjective. You’d need to narrow it down and define some criteria before you could try implementing a study for it.

    If video games really were an unqualified good

    I don’t think any sensible person would try to argue that. Nothing is an unqualified good. Watching 150 hours of tv would be just as bad as spending that time playing video games (video games would probably be better because at least you’re getting more brain stimulation). You can form unhealthy habits with anything. Video games are like any other hobby; you have to balance them with other hobbies/responsibilities. It’s good to know exactly what effects certain things like video games can have on your mind and body, but I don’t think its that useful to compare time spent with one hobby/responsibility to time spent with some other hobby/responsibility. And it always seems like only certain things are compared like that. People rarely ask if watching tv is good for their health, even if they do it more than you or I play video games. Why would playing guitar be better than playing a video game? What makes video games the lowest value hobby? (sorry this got kinda ranty. This sparked a lot of things in me i guess)

    I am suggesting that “gamers say gaming is good for them, actually” does not provide useful data for analysis or discussion.

    100% This article was a waste of time. I’m not disagreeing on that. Your comment gave me more to think about than that article.