381–388 of 388 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I just went to https://social.lol/
Gee. When I just go to https://social.lol I see this as the first thing: "These are posts from across the social web that are gaining traction today. Newer posts with more boosts and favorites are ranked higher."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I’d like to see which accounts are using the services for a better community It’s more like after you use it for a little while you look up and suddenly realize you’re in a new but familiar feeling community. It definitely skews developer/blogger/liberal, is openly inclusive and mindful of accessibility (not perfect, but always trying), there's a lot of overlap with various micro.blog/IndieWeb/fediverse communities…
I on the other hand would happily pay through 2030 to avoid the people you describe on omg.lol. I dislike pretentious tech positivity and HR catladies policing my online life.
It's a nice place to hang out because there aren’t many folks… misusing words like pretentious and claiming literally anyone is policing their life except, you know, the police.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not being indexed by search engines is a fatal flaw in my opinion. There might be some interesting discussions taking place on Mastodon, but I would have no way of knowing.
I like the idea of it, but I also have no idea how one would find any of these cited discussions. It seems having an existing social network gives you a strong advantage. As a lurker, introvert, and ruralite, I think I'm going to be naturally disadvantaged on these types of platforms. Or maybe I'm just misunderstanding the whole design.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe the Nostr protocol and all its implementations (that do talk with each other) are the true replacement for Twitter? Check out some trending people/topics on Nostr here: https://nostr.band/
I've never quite wrapped my head around how any federated network would compete with centralized social media platforms, it feels like a solution for a different use case Federation means we have numerous copies of every single post ever shared floating around somewhere, that's a massive waste of resources IMO. Similarly, the amount of network traffic grows exponentially as the number of full nodes grows and again wa…
I don't think it's really that big of a waste..
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think that's great.. archiving should be opt-in not opt-out You can read and access my work/words as I want. And once I don't or change my mind you can't. Once someone posts something, you don't have a right to it in perpetuity .. That's how things should work - but that's just my opinion
Vehement disagree. Many of the early communities I participated in are gone forever, and it's a shame to think of how much more has been lost to time. In the absolute limit, I hope our future descendents reconstruct the past light cone and can replay all of our biochemical thoughts and emotions. Perhaps even simulating our existence and perception to exacting precision. Maybe they'll get to see t-rexes in their natur…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think that's great.. archiving should be opt-in not opt-out You can read and access my work/words as I want. And once I don't or change my mind you can't. Once someone posts something, you don't have a right to it in perpetuity .. That's how things should work - but that's just my opinion
Except for the artifice that is copyright, things don't work like that for anything else. Reality doesn't work like that. > Once someone posts something, you don't have a right to it in perpetuity On the contrary, once someone posts something, they don't have control over it anymore. You can't make me unsee what you wrote, or unhear what you said. You have no right to stop me from writing it down, and even if you can…
If you create something physical, say a popup art installation, it's trivial to dismantle it and it stops existing (other maybe in some photos or video). When it comes to text the same isn't as simple and it requires a social compact (ie laws)
As for gaslighting, you can archive things without redistributing them. You can just publish hashes of what people published and only redistribute/republish in the context of proving someone said something
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think that's great.. archiving should be opt-in not opt-out You can read and access my work/words as I want. And once I don't or change my mind you can't. Once someone posts something, you don't have a right to it in perpetuity .. That's how things should work - but that's just my opinion
In the UK, if you publish a book, magazine or newspaper, by law you have to send a copy to the British Library for archive. A lot of other countries have similar laws. In the UK, legal deposit has expanded to include the web (so long as the person/group creating the content is in the UK), but since many individuals and small businesses are unaware of legal deposit, the UK Web Archive will archive a lot of the web by…
Trying to see the limits of this logic. Would you say that if you paint a painting , you should have no right to shred it ?
Text is just trivial to copy perfectly and doesn't have the intrinsic protection of other mediums
If things were archived in a artic vault to be opened in 1000 years maybe I'd respect the arguments for archiving better
Current "archiving" is steal and rehosting other people's work/labor