Definitely, AP is not magic. But if even within one protocol round-tripping and full-fidelity is impossible or very difficult, that makes it only harder and less likely through a bridge.
Interested in the intersections between policy, law and technology. Programmer, lawyer, civil servant, orthodox Marxist. Blind.
Interesado en la intersección entre la política, el derecho y la tecnología. Programador, abogado, funcionario, marxista ortodoxo. Ciego.
Definitely, AP is not magic. But if even within one protocol round-tripping and full-fidelity is impossible or very difficult, that makes it only harder and less likely through a bridge.
IMO bridging or translation isn’t federation per se. Also it seems unlikely that protocols would converge to that extent. In fact AP implementations are already different enough that even within the same protocol it’s hard to represent all the different activities instances can present.
I wouldn’t really count Mastodon/Bluesky bridging as federation. They’re incompatible protocols that were never intended to work together (arguably Bluesky was explicitly designed to avoid using AP).
For me the weirdest part of the interview is where he says he doesn’t want to follow anyone, that he wants the algorithm to just pick up on his interests. It’s so diametrically opposed to how I want to intentionally use social networks and how the fedi tends to work that it’s sometimes hard to remember there are people who take that view.
Can’t happen soon enough.
Very informative. On paragraphs 61 and following, it clearly explains why the Israeli claims on human shields are improper and how attacks are not maintaining the principles of proportionality, distinction, and so on.
Very well-reasoned article, though the political constraints might end up making implementing its recommendations impossible. Hard to see how the US and EU could make the rhetorical shifts it would take. If events continue as they are now, the military realities may preclude it. While it seems advantageous to reach a negotiated settlement for all sides at the moment, this will not remain the case forever.
I can think of alternatives. For example, the server could keep the user’s private key, encrypted with a passphrase that the user must have. So key loss wouldn’t be an issue. (Yes, passphrase loss might, but there are lots of ways to keep those safely already, compared to key material which is difficult to handle.)
So, not super sure what this is or how this works. Is the idea that you run the cgi, it sets up static files, and it responds to AP requests like follows, mentions, boosts and such? I realise lots of people don’t like long docs but I didn’t really understand the use case very well.
Why’s RFA not blacklisted?
On my instance, the following control measures apply:
So I think I have reason to feel fairly strongly that follower only posts are not public, and even unlisted posts are reasonably restricted.
I don’t get why states do this. Lie? Yes, that makes sense. But lie so badly it’s inevitable they get caught? A lot of people, I would think, will now also have qualms believing anything coming from them, even things that might be true.
Hypothetically? Maybe, but it seems extremely unlikely. Even if the referendum would have run normally back then, what would have happened next?
In fact, the declaration of independence lasted seconds, because anyone who knows anything can realise the extreme infeasibility of a unilateral declaration and all it would entail.
that said, if the Spanish state is so fragile a vote could split it, then it should probably split.
I would expect that, but I’m not just talking right wingers. I personally know Sumar voters who said they will now vote for cannabis party or any random thing because of the amnesty.
Not that hard left (I gave money to Sumar but I’m realistic that it’s the best we can get, more than what we want).
I know some people who are really pissed off about the amnesty, and personally I don’t get it. Like in what world is the personal fate of a few hundreds of people who, let’s say for the sake of the argument, ran an illegal referendum, more important than labour rights for everyone?
I played it and enjoyed it. The first time round I didn’t really know what I was doing in terms of game mechanics, just went by what I would do in that place, and my moderation speed fell to 0 so I lost.
Second time I managed to finish the game, with some compromises but not too awful.
There is literally no instance in which expanding the scope of copyright law is a good thing. Never.
Not saying this won’t have any negative effects on people, however I think it’s a little premature to guess at what it will be like. About 3/4 of the article is commenting what it will do to men when we find out only at the end women are the majority of users.
As far as I can tell, this is incorrect. If there’s a post on instance A, a reply from instance B, and someone on instance C follows the OP on A but not the RP on B, they will only see the OP without the reply.
Source: I very often notice this because I run a single-user instance, and when I open a thread it’s incomplete, lacking posts from instances that I have not suspended.
There’s an entire political party built around it and you think people can’t talk about it openly?